- From: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:25:19 -0700
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
I think I'm not understanding the implications of your argument. You're making a principled argument about future pitfalls. Can you help me get my head around it by way of example? Perhaps: -pitfalls developers fall into -further dangerous points along the slippery slope you think this opens up (you mentioned pandoras box) On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> Does anyone object to me adding <template>, <content>, and <shadow> to >> the HTML parser spec next week? > > I don't object to adding them if they create normal child elements in > the DOM. I do object if <template> has a null firstChild and the new > property that leads to a fragment that belongs to a different owner > document. > > (My non-objection to creating normal children in the DOM should not be > read as a commitment to support templates Gecko.) > > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ >
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 15:25:48 UTC