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

Re: Review of the <template> spec

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:58:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei9a-jMxgrYY42MF16AWKx-0UUq6znHcSmgZNuiXiOgszA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> 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.

True. Though I wonder if that can be solved in other ways. Should be
relatively easy to fix in Gecko, though I don't know about other
implementations of course.

Seems unfortunate to add the wonkyness of separate owner documents
just to overcome this hurdle.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 22:59:07 UTC

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