[uf-discuss] Re: Possible alternative methods for "include"

[Toby A Inkster]

Paul Wilkins wrote:
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
>> The order of the paragraphs doesn't have a "special significance", yet
>> the paragraphs do have an inherent order. Similarly, the order of class
>> names within a class attribute don't have a special significance
>> attached to them by the HTML spec, but they do still have an inherent
>> order.
> 
> There is an inherent order, but that order can not be relied upon to
> convey any useful information.

An inherent order is all that is needed by my include pattern. It uses the 
inherent order of class names to emulate the inherent order of child nodes.

Such that this:

	<p class="#foo bar #baz">
		x
	</p>

is considered equivalent to the following using current existing include-
pattern:

	<p class="bar">
		<a class="include" href="#foo"></a>
		x
		<a class="include" href="#baz"></a>
	</p>

Both examples take advantage of inherent rather than explicit order. In 
the first case the inherent order of class names is used; and in the 
second, the inherent order of child nodes. However, my suggested format is 
less verbose, creates no "dummy elements" in the DOM and is likely to 
cause fewer accessibility problems.

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 9 days, 17:08.]

                       The Great IE8 Meta Tag Debacle
          http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/02/06/ie-8-meta-tag/