To explain the distinction, consider transcluding a copyright license
from some other document, such as the GPL. If you want to *quote*
the GPL as it applies, say, to the gcc compiler, then you are
transcluding it for *quotation*. If, OTOH, you want to apply the
GPL to your own document, you are transcluding it for *reuse*.
In that case, the GPL is not being quoted in your document, but
rather replicated into the appropriate slot of your document ---
the (virtual) copyright page. It should appear in the font & style
appropriate to a copyright page, not to that appropriate to a
(block) quotation. In either case, the stylesheet of the referring
document is the controlling element.
I believe that T.H. Nelson's original concern was with transclusion for
reuse. Traditionally, authors have been faced with a dilemma:
express a thought in your own words, or quote someone else's wording.
Transclusion for reuse allows a third possibility: use someone else's
wording to express your thought, in such a way that the curious can
determine that someone else chose the wording (and with the
possibility of compensating the original author). Transclusion for
reuse is a way of making other people your co-authors, with credit
and (possible) compensation, but without their specific consent.
(Publishing one's document in transclusible form would constitute
a general consent.)
Comments?
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)