> > 2) A more viable solution might be to introduce an <INCLUDE> element.
[ ... ]
> OK, but we would have to use <!ELEMENT BODY O O (%body.content) +(INCLUDE)>
> to ensure that the INCLUDE element can be placed at any point in an
> HTML document body.
It might suffice to add INCLUDE to %body.content; and %block; ,
and add the restriction that <INCLUDE>ed documents must contain
a single block-level element (e.g., <DIV> -- glad to see that
in the latest draft!)
This would cover most of the cases where this feature
would be useful, and would (I think) be cleaner than
an inclusion exception.
> > P.S. Looking at the HTML 3.0 spec, I am surprised to see the REV
> > attribute missing from both <A> and <LINK>. Why is that?
>
> Do we really need REV and METHOD ?
Lynx (and maybe other browsers?) currently uses <LINK REV=made>
to identify the document author, and many existing documents
use this construct; REV ought to stay for backwards-compatibility
if nothing else.
METHOD (on LINK) could be safely dropped, since it only makes sense
for http:// URLs, and for those the only sensible method is GET.
--Joe English
joe@trystero.art.com