- From: anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:48:09 +0300
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPkN8xLMZFiAN5SjykAkOtP9b6bToaqknYRK1LtkNGPnZdwx=A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Arthur, What is not clear in my previous mail? The non-mystic syntax is included there at the top. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Anatoly, > > Perhaps it would be helpful if you expanded on specific issues with the > HTML Imports syntax, either on this list or using an Issue < > https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/labels/html-imports>. > > -Regards, ArtB > > On 7/14/15 3:32 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > >> 7 years ago the request to add <body> was blocked [1] >> >> <body> >> <include src = "header.html"/> >> <content>HTML5 body includes are unreadable</content> >> </body> >> >> The reason was that parser has to block while the document >> is loading. Is that still actual for 2015? >> >> From the user experience standpoint I find the barrier for >> structuring HTML5 pages too high for newcomers. The simple >> include could greatly help people to work with HTML5 more >> easily and learn how to make their markup more readable. >> Custom elements are awesome when you're a coder, but no >> so awesome when you're just a journalist of designer. >> >> Even as experienced non-JS coder I find the current syntax >> for includes mystic and daunting [2]. The paradox is that for >> HTML5 includes it is not possible to know about HTML alone >> - need a good knowledge of CSS selectors, DOM and >> JavaScript to read the website. >> >> 1. >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6875404/why-does-html5-not-include-a-way-of-loading-local-html-into-the-document >> 2. >> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webcomponents/imports/#usingcontent >> >> Please, CC. >> -- >> anatoly t. >> > > -- anatoly t.
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2015 13:48:56 UTC