- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:50:03 -0700
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Yuval Sadan <sadan.yuval@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hmm. I have to say that I disagree that your example below shows a >>> template within a template. That is IMO 1 template wherein there is >>> iteration syntax. >> >> The "iteration syntax" is basically an element - the example that Arv >> gave even used element-like syntax, with open and close tags. That >> iteration element is inside of a template. > > But in his example, and most of the ones people have been citing or > really want to use this for they are no tags in the HTML sense... > Those are handlebars (or mustache or dust or haml or whatever) [snip further comments along similar lines] As long as it's handlebars that merely *look* like elements, we have to ship code down the wire that is simply a functional replacement for the DOM that the user already has. This is suboptimal. It's a cowpath that only curves this way because the straighter path was blocked by a boulder, and cows don't have dynamite. We do. The more we can replace code-on-the-wire with code-in-the-browser, the better. (Subject to obvious tradeoffs, of course.) ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 17:50:56 UTC