[jwells89]

To me at least this feels like a fairly natural addition to HTML. You can already pull in external scripts, stylesheets, images, video, etc, so why not page partials too? A sibling comment mentions XSLT which is cool, but nobody knows about it because it doesn’t follow any patterns set in HTML and HTML doesn’t have any breadcrumbs that might lead someone to discover XSLT. Something like <partial src=“header.html”> flows with expectations much better.

Something I find a bit funny now is that for the longest time back in the 2000s, nearly the entirety of my usage of PHP was comprised of PHP includes to make up for this gap in HTML functionality (I had no idea XSLT existed then).

[ndriscoll]

It had breadcrumbs back in 2004 (e.g. those neat "valid XHTML 1.1" badges from W3C back when badges on your website were cool, and e.g. W3 Schools actually put it above javascript[0]. XHTML was supposed to be the next big thing). These days it seems that browser vendors just don't like it for whatever reason (tinfoil hat on: because almost all of them benefit from javascript-based spyware, and so prefer a world where even static pages require javascript to be enabled to show anything), and so documentation acts like it is some legacy thing instead of what it is: a perfect fit for the 99% of websites that need some templates and don't have much dynamic interaction.

Other cool web tech that should have "won": XForms[1]. Imagine if HTML forms had things like declarative data-binding (with XPath expressions! Imagine jq built directly into the browser 20 years ago and usable by forms) and types/constraints/validation built right in. This would be 1000x more useful for your average web dev than something like USB or GPU support or Wasm. You'd be able to make complex interactive forms in much the same way that you do a spreadsheet.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040727061732/http://www.w3scho...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yYY7GJAbOo

[PaulDavisThe1st]

One reason that this is slightly more complicated than it appears is that you have to decide what ignore when doing the inclusion. Including an image will not override anything specified in the "parent" HTML, but including HTML might result in conflicts. Who wins, who loses, etc. etc.

[harry8]

Why isn't it exactly the same as if the doc had the includes filled out and then processed semantically, much like C?

All <<<include whatever.html>>> could be replaced with contents first. Then it's just a page of html as now.