- From: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:15:46 +0000
- To: "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 30.10.12 21:56, "Yehuda Katz" <yehuda.katz@jquery.com> wrote: > >Script template: ><script type=template> > <div id=foo class=bar></div> > <script> something();<\/script> > <script type=template> > <div class=nested-template></div> > <\/script> ></script> > > > > >I really don't like this. The escaped backslash is an eyesore and >error-prone. Hijacking an existing tag with extremely crufty semantics >with yet more semantics doesn't pay for itself at all, especially when >you consider the strange closing script tag. +1. I am not in favor of the escaped syntax, but would like to keep the <template> syntax, with both "src" and inlining (although inlining should be the default, out of performance reasons). Its look & feel is very hacky (and I have written countless hacky polyfills), and not like a clean new slate for template authors. > > >Pros: >- Similar to the way many JS-implemented templating sches work today > > > >I think this is actually a negative. It looks like what people are doing >today, but a seemingly arbitrary type triggers completely new behavior. >As a (popular) template engine author, I would prefer a clean-slate tag >(<template>) to trying to cram more semantics into the existing <script> >tag with new gotchas. +1. > > >- Can be polyfilled with full fidelity and no risk of content that's >meant to be inert accidentally running
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 13:16:15 UTC