I'm still reading the thread and its become very interesting,
perhaps what's need is to have a <csp:includeStatic page=????> command
that does just that, no interpretation, nothing, just serves the code
included in the page.
I originally did the work this way, because I was
a) playing, experimenting
b) trying to differentiate between CSP pages (containing links to
cache data or COS type code) and "other" types of code.
In my eyes, if I have ANY code that is interpreted by the csp
engine, then I always put an extension of CSP (or CLS) any other
code, then the extension simply becomes .htm or .js
or .inc or . anyOtherThing
I was thinking more along the lines of re-usability - the very thing I
"thought" that the "include" functionality was designed for, whether it
was interpreted or served, became a little bit blurred in the course of
doing the work.
I guess its a little bit like calling a sub-routine / method or calling
a macro or calling an extrinsic function. As the programmer, I can do
anyone of these (as long as I am consistent in my approach) - and the
argument / merits of each is for another thread
perhaps the documentation should state "clearly" when you use
<!-- include> and when you use <csp:include> and just as important,
make the documentation clear of some of the implications of changing
switches.
a note has been forwarded to the documentation people asking for more
clarity
in the mean time, its an interesting thread. . . . .
kev
