- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:45:34 -0400
- To: Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-webapps@w3.org
Earlier in this thread I mentioned "I expect, however, that there might be larger ideas behind why not to do this in the sense of web components or declarative MDV-like data binding..." I guess this is mostly a question for Dimitri or Dominic, but: <template> is used/referenced extensively in the Web Components Explainer[1] -- I am wondering what using template to hold something like a mustache template (which doesn't use an HTML-like syntax for things like iterators and thus must be used "as a string") would mean in the context of those proposals... How would it affect one's ability to use custom elements, decorators, etc...? - Brian [1] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/explainer/index.html On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com> wrote: > JSONP: > <script > src="/myserver/users/{userID}/profile.js&jsonp=setProfile"></script> > > > > On 4/25/12 2:36 AM, "Kornel Lesiński" <kornel@geekhood.net> wrote: > >>On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:15 +0100, Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>> 1) Templates that cleanly include "</script>". >> >>What's the use-case for including <script> in a template? Can't code >>using >>the template simply invoke functions it needs? >> >>-- >>regards, Kornel Lesiński >> >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 17:46:08 UTC