W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:43:29 +0000 (UTC)
To: Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@google.com>
cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1110111641140.20981@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Roland Steiner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:58, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Roland Steiner wrote:
> > > On a second note, what you essentially seem to demand is swapping 
> > > out entire HTML sub-branches based on presentation.
> >
> > It's not how I would describe it (I wouldn't expect the shadow trees 
> > to be written using HTML), but to a first approximation, sure.
> Intriguing - could you elaborate on the above? Do you mean shadow trees 
> should not use HTML, but something different? (If so, what instead? pure 
> JS?) Or do you mean shadow trees should not be defined in the HTML of 
> the main DOM and then swapped into the shadow trees? If the latter, I 
> fully agree.

Shadow trees tend to just be a bunch of semantic-free elements (like 
<div>), not semantic-rich HTML (like <p> or <input>); so much so that in 
XBL2 we actually had an XBL-namespace <div> so you wouldn't have to use 
the HTML namespace <div>. It's not an important difference.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 16:47:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:36 UTC