W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2011

[whatwg] Declarative Inert DOM (e.g. the <template> element)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:29:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8HUKRakH8tXERNpU+uO1pRT4xqcw9CCYwgk9+3xDYkWA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:
>>>> Personally it seems to me that moving the elements out of the DOM such
>>>> that you can't find them using gEBI/querySelector/firstChild is more
>>>> surprising than useful.
>>>>
>>>> It would basically reduce the feature to syntax sugar for setting
>>>> .innerHTML on an orphaned <div>. Is that really producing the best
>>>> solution for authors?
>>>
>>> No, it's still not syntax sugar. ?You still get the lack of attribute
>>> normalization, for example.
>>
>> Wouldn't that just happen when the template is instantiated?
>
> I'm slightly confused as to what we're talking about now.
>
> Property normalization happens during parsing, right? ?So it's not
> just sugar over .innerHTML, as that would normalize properties.
>
> Yes, they should be normalized when the template is instantiated, though.

I'm equally confused. What type of normalization is it that you are
talking about? When does it happen during normal parsing or DOM
interaction? When should it happen during template parsing? And if
different for template parsing vs. normal parsing, then why do you
want it to be different?

An example might help to clear things up here.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 18:29:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:09 UTC