On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > A call like "document.querySelectorAll('p')" doesn't *want* to get the
> > <p> inside the template.
>
> I think it's backwards to assume that querySelectorAll() works a
> particular way and that's that's not what authors want and to change
> the DOM in response.
>
>
You could make this argument about any assumption anyone makes anywhere
which in any way adds features.
<template> is a pretty fundamentally different use of the DOM from existing
practices and it seems like violations of existing rules are likely.
That said, is a best practice here to put <template> in the <head> if web
developers are inclined to inline the template declaration? At least then
you can rely on document.body.querySelectorAll(). That seems like the
cleanest approach from a developer's perspective and is consistent with
practices like putting embedded CSS in the <head>.
Alec
> There are various solutions that don't involve drastic changes to the
> correspondence between the markup and the DOM, for example:
>
> * Invoking querySelectorAll() on a wrapper element that's known not to
> be a parent of the templates on the page.
>
> * Using a selector that fails to match elements whose ancestor chain
> contains a template element.
>
> * Introducing an API querySelectorNonTemplate(). (Don't say "All" if
> you don't mean *all*).
>
> Even though XML has fallen out of favor, I think violations of the DOM
> Consistency principle and features that don't work with the XHTML
> serialization should be considered huge red flags indicating faulty
> design.
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 15:38:51 UTC