[uf-discuss] proposal: a.include

[Ryan King]

On Jul 9, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> Ryan wrote:
>
>> (sidenote: I don't think the @type should be required after this  
>> change)
>
> I'm not sure about that.  OT1H the addition of the "type" attribute  
> tries to
> communicate that the "include" is "just" HTML.  OTOH the "text/ 
> html" type is
> for a whole document, not just a fragment so it might not be  
> correct to use
> "text/html" for the include-pattern.
>
> ...
>
> Thoughts?

My thought: specifying the mime-type on a local IDREF violates the  
DRY principle. A local IDREF refers to the existing document so any  
mime-type applied to that reference will be:

1. non-standard,
2. wrong, or
3. duplicative

In other words if the mimetype is wrong, the @type attribute is  
worthless, if it's correct, it doesn't tell us anything we don't  
already know. The best we can hope for is a non standard mimetype  
which hasn't been used anywhere before.

I still vote for not requiring it.

-ryan