Hi Todd,

When we designed transclusions, the reason we chose to clone rather
than update was to distinguish the following behavior:

1. User would like to move a transclusion to a better location within
a specific version of the document (i.e. edit the transclusion).
2. User would like to make a edit the document, and thus all
regenerate all transclusions at their new relevant locations.

The advantage here is that we are able to view old versions of the
document with the corresponding transclusion that apply to that
version of the document. If we update the transclusions, we lose the
information that says which transclusions apply to an old version of
the document (which may not be the same as all old transclusions that
ever applied to that version of the document).

So I'd prefer to come up with a UI that allows us to display the
current model of Transclusion, rather than only allow transclusions to
refer to the current version of a document.

Mike

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Todd Davies <davies@stanford.edu>; wrote:
> Todd Davies commented on Commenting Interface Design
> Comment title: Re: Transclusion UI question
>
> ________________________________
>
> Hi, Mike,
>
> I actually think that the transclusion should remain the same from version
> to version, with different versions of the transclusion to correspond to
> each version of the item into which it transcludes. This way you only have
> one item id, though the transclusion can move around.
>
> Todd