Re: [w3c/webcomponents] HTML Modules (#645)

That is precisely the use case. In the bad old days some of us built out
template systems that used server side includes. The point is not to
eliminate JS and CSS by the way, but to have graceful fallback options
while still allowing for some sort of modularity for sites with a large
amounts of mostly static content. It would work hand in hand with
<template> and custom elements.

That fallback by the way? It also allows that often machines are reading
and making use of that content. Combine with something like Linked Data and
we actually have a web that works as intended.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 19:01 Ashley (Scirra) <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> The only way I can imagine HTML modules being useful with script disabled
> is if they basically inserted their full DOM content at the place they were
> included. So to use HTML imports as an example, <link rel="import"
> href="import.html"> would be equivalent to copy-pasting the contents of
> import.html in place of that tag. Is that really a significant use case?
> Perhaps there could be an extra mode to do that, but would anyone use it?
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
>
>
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/645#issuecomment-310228789>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGYGJ_yAGHU_C4uE_PtoBQiKQUag6J3bks5sGaDNgaJpZM4N_wrF>
> .
>


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/645#issuecomment-310231285