- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:08:21 -0400
- To: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
- Cc: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com>, 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 5:51 PM, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, the fact that they both work with <script> is why I didn't list them. > If it weren't for #2, I would suspect that there wouldn't be any proposal > for <template> other than solving the </script> problem. As much as <script > type="text/whatever"> is a hack, it's really pretty clean. I could be wrong, > but I don't think there is any group of developers who are actually upset > about the semantics of using <script>. > +1. It's really about those couple of issues in my mind. Even the inability to write script tags doesn't exactly make me cry, but I can see the usefulness of it... Is it just Scott and I who are totally outside a larger consensus on this?
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 22:08:50 UTC