>
> In looking at your code, I'm a bit confused.
>
> First, why not just specify the included includes as comments?
You mean, as persistent includes? Well, persistent includes are more verbose,
and not needed unless you’re planning to update the. In this case, when I
update, the outermost persistent include will be completely replaced, and any
nested includes should be substituted once at that time. Finally it doesn’t
solve the problem.
I’ve also got a vague recollection of nested persistent includes giving me
trouble, but that might twenty years ago.
> Second, why does your include change the doctype from invocation to
> invocation?
Oh, when I started this rewrite of the old Minutes Header, I decided to upgrade
from XHTML 1.1 to HTML 5, so that’s just one of the details I changed.
Neil
--
This is the BBEdit Talk public discussion group. If you have a
feature request or would like to report a problem, please email
"supp...@barebones.com" rather than posting to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: <http://www.twitter.com/bbedit>
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BBEdit Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to bbedit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bbedit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bbedit.
