- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:36:56 +0900
- To: "Alex Russell" <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "Rafael Weinstein" <rafaelw@google.com>, "Adam Klein" <adamk@google.com>, "Erik Aarvidson" <arv@google.com>
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:31:08 +0900, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: > The Quasi Litteral syntax for ES.next is providing a possible solution > here: > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:quasis > > String that don't use quasis do still present a problem, but the same > hazard will always be available for users of JS who use innerHTML > naively. They do I suppose if you want to create your DOM structures using strings. But that seems really ugly. It seems much more natural to be able to do: node.append(<div class="widget"><a href="/contact">Contact us!</a></div>) node.innerHTML = <p>Hello World!</p> >> Markup literals in ECMAScript (i.e. E4X) solve these problems. They make >> creating a DOM structure easy. They allow for templating. > > It is our belief on the Chrome team that templating is not desirable > in the absence of data binding. We have a prototype built with ES.next > features in mind that explores what we think is a more promising way > forward: > > http://code.google.com/p/mdv/ HTML at one point had data templating and binding. It was not really workable. Anyway, maybe templating is too much of a distraction here. Really this proposal is about improving working with the DOM. >> We should also make some simplifications. Supporting XMLComment, >> XMLCDATA, >> and XMLPI seems unneeded. Namespaces should probably go and instead we >> should favor what HTML allows for, i.e. HTML, SVG, and MathML. Instead >> of XPath we could use Selectors. We can simplify the API. We could even >> add >> some HTML features, such as unquoted attributes, for ease of authoring. > > I have a larger concern here, which is that we're implicitly forcing > literals to be XML, while the rest of the document is HTML. The closer > we can get to HTML for something like this, the better (IMO). Well yeah, that is what I am suggesting. I am not sure how close we can get given the complexity of HTML, but we should be able to work something out. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 02:37:37 UTC