- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:36:47 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 10 May 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> > >> > Yes, I understand that. But what's the use case? >> >> The use-case is to provide a more convenient API for developers. >> >> The whole purpose of this thread is to provide a convenience API which >> provides context-free parsing. If we don't care about providing such >> convenience for authors we should just tell them to use the >> already-defined .innerHTML or a custom HTML parser and this whole thread >> is just moot. > > My understanding is that the context for this thread is how to support > <template>. Neither innerHTML nor a custom HTML parser will help for that. > > > On Thu, 10 May 2012, Scott González wrote: >> >> Why is simplicity not enough of an answer? > > It's a fine answer. But I don't think magical APIs are simple. Simplicity > in this case IMHO argues for explicitly selected context. The jQuery API shows that at least jQuery developers don't agree with you regarding what is simpler here. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 22:37:46 UTC