W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: [webcomponents] More backward-compatible templates

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>
Message-ID: <CCB833CE.16165%pbakaus@zynga.com>


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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:55 GMT