- From: Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:48:15 -0700
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
- CC: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Yuval Sadan <sadan.yuval@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
+1. These are the issues IMO. 1) Templates that cleanly include "</script>". 2) Generating fragments with arbitrary top-level elements. 3. Inert. You don't want to fetch resources at unresolved URLs. 4. Selectors should not match content of the template On 4/24/12 3:08 PM, "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote: >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 23:48:53 UTC