Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components from Roland Steiner on 2011-10-11 (public-webapps@w3.org from October to December 2011)

From: Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:57:07 +0900
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
Message-ID: <CACFPSph37Wq-+CgDHs8ojhTnVA0pg5etvLrt=k+0+P2U0R-DEA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:58, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Roland Steiner wrote:> On a second note, what you
> essentially seem to demand is swapping out
> > entire HTML sub-branches based on presentation.
>
> It's not how I would describe it (I wouldn't expect the shadow trees to be
> written using HTML), but to a first approximation, sure.

Intriguing - could you elaborate on the above? Do you mean shadow trees
should not use HTML, but something different? (If so, what instead? pure
JS?) Or do you mean shadow trees should not be defined in the HTML of the
main DOM and then swapped into the shadow trees? If the latter, I fully
agree.

Cheers,

- Roland

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 06:58:00 UTC