W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the <template> element

From: Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:48:15 -0700
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
CC: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Yuval Sadan <sadan.yuval@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBBC88C1.739C%clint.hill@gmail.com>
+1. These are the issues IMO.

1) Templates that cleanly include "</script>".
2) Generating fragments with arbitrary top-level elements.

3. Inert. You don't want to fetch resources at unresolved URLs.
4. Selectors should not match content of the template





On 4/24/12 3:08 PM, "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Scott González
><scott.gonzalez@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, the fact that they both work with <script> is why I didn't list
>>them.
>> If it weren't for #2, I would suspect that there wouldn't be any
>>proposal
>> for <template> other than solving the </script> problem. As much as
>><script
>> type="text/whatever"> is a hack, it's really pretty clean. I could be
>>wrong,
>> but I don't think there is any group of developers who are actually
>>upset
>> about the semantics of using <script>.
>>
>
>+1.  It's really about those couple of issues in my mind.   Even the
>inability to write script tags doesn't exactly make me cry, but I can
>see the usefulness of it...
>
>Is it just Scott and I who are totally outside a larger consensus on this?
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 23:48:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT