Oldak Quill <oldakquill@...> writes:
On 13/10/06, Mark Clements <gmane@...> wrote:
Thanks for that very detailed breakdown. Given that answer, is there a reason that <onlyinclude> is not documented anywhere? I find it an odd omission if they were all introduced at the same time...
And why do we need both <noinclude> and <includeonly>? Do they not, when placed around slightly different sections of text, perform the same function?
But something interesting that is, any difference between <includeonly> and <onlyinclude>??
Shinjiman