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

Re: Review of the <template> spec

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:32:42 +0100
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "public-webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Rafael Weinstein" <rafaelw@google.com>
Message-ID: <op.wpavgsxkidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:04:20 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>>> 1. If DOCUMENT does not have a browsing context, Let TEMPLATE CONTENTS  
>>> OWNER be DOCUMENT and abort these steps.
>>> 2. Otherwise, Let TEMPLATE CONTENTS OWNER be a new Document node that  
>>> does not have a browsing context.
>> Is there a big win from this inconsistency? Why not always have a
>> separate doc as the template contents owner?
> Or why not always use the owner document of the <template> element?

I think that would cause things like <img> elements to load.

> Documents are fairly heavy-weight and introducing several documents
> into the mix means that we have to deal with issues like making sure
> that those documents have the same behavior (for example, if HTML
> elements in those documents uppercase the nodeName or not)
> / Jonas

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 09:33:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:50 UTC