Subject: RE: auto/embed is not node transclusion From: "Robert Streich" <streich@xxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 13:03:55 -0500 |
> First let me define node-level transclusion: node level transclusion is a > transformation from a source grove (DOM, information set, whatever) to a > result grove (...) that creates a result where the result grove has some > nodes replaced by nodes reference by those nodes. This would have > well-defined implications for hypertext links, APIs, stylesheet languages > and so forth. In other words, it would be *well-defined*. I think your definition here is wrong, Paul. "Transclusion" as described by Nelson would effectively link two groves. You can't copy the nodes into your own grove, you have to traverse to the grove that contains the transclusion and then traverse back at the end of it. The difference between transclusion and inclusion is that the context of the transcluded content is still retained. In Nelson's application model, transclusions opened a viewport that was nested inside your document. This way you could scroll above and below the transcluded content to see its original context. But I do agree with your original statement--auto/embed is not node transclusion. bob Robert Streich Work Process Systems, Inc. Houston, TX XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: auto/embed is not node transclu, Rick Geimer | Thread | XLink: behavior must go!, Martin Bryan |
Re: XSL Limitation? Is this possib, Rick Geimer | Date | Summary of results. Re: XSL Limita, Nicolas Pottier |
Month |