- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:45:33 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Bonner, Matt (IPG)" <matt.bonner@hp.com>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008, Bonner, Matt (IPG) wrote: > > First topic is <datatemplate>. I see that this is marked as "Being > considered for removal" in the WHATWG draft, so I welcome any guidance > on its likely fate. It (and the repetition section of WF2, also part of HTML5) are two ways of doing templating, but really there are dozens and dozens of ways of doing it. In my research on this I've come across a number of different mechanisms that can't be said to be any technically worse than what's in the spec, each with their own strengths and their own weaknesses. Similarly, people have given me many use cases that each need their own unique features. Because of this, making any one mechanism an officially blessed one seems like a bad idea. It would only cater for a small fraction of the cases we want to cater for. There's no point adding features that aren't useful to the majority of people who need them. I think therefore that the better idea is to look at the data templating and repetition model features, as well as the many other client-side templating ideas people have come up with for HTML, and find what features, if any, could provide an underlying infrastructure that could enable all of these features to be implemented easily by authors. That way we would help a much bigger fraction of the potential template authors. As far the more concrete technical questions go, Philip's comments and explanations are right on the money. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2008 06:46:12 UTC