- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 10:39:37 +0200
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
On 05/09/2012 10:16 AM, James Graham wrote: > On 05/09/2012 09:52 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Rafael Weinstein<rafaelw@google.com> >> wrote: >>> What doesn't appear to be controversial is the parser changes which >>> would allow the template element to have arbitrary top-level content >>> elements. >> >> It's not controversial as long as an HTML context is assumed. I think >> it is still controversial for SVG and MathML elements that aren't >> wrapped in an<svg> or<math> element. >> >>> I'd like to propose that we add DocumentFragment.innerHTML which >>> parses markup into elements without a context element. >> >> Why should the programmer first create a document fragment and then >> set a property on it? Why not introduce four methods on Document that >> return a DocumentFragment: document.parseFragmentHTML (parses like >> <template>.innerHTML), document.parseFragementSVG (parses like >> <svg>.innerHTML), document.parseFragmentMathML (parses like >> <math>.innerHTML) and document.parseFragmentXML (parses like innerHTML >> in the XML mode without namespace context)? This would avoid magic for >> distinguishing HTML<a> and SVG<a>. > > I think introducing four seperate methodsWithLongNames on document is > not creating an API that authors will actually use. Instead it would > likely be wrapped in some less-verbose API with a single entry point and > library-specific magic and regexp to determine which entry point to use. > So I fear this solution may just be punting the problem to a higher > layer, where it will be more inconsistently solved. By way of a concrete-strawman (or whatever it is one is supposed to say) proposal: document.parse(string, ["auto"|"html"|"svg"|"mathml"|"xml"]) With "auto" being the default and doing magic, and the other options allowing one to disable the magic.
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 08:40:09 UTC