RE: auto/embed is not node transclusion

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


Robert Streich
Work Process Systems, Inc.
Houston, TX

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread