- From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:41:37 -0800
- To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CABNRm61CVC4XOkN74x_mR1Tb=p7NN2XzD0tE4=VTcUibi+axgg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>wrote: > == IDEA 1: Keep template contents parsing in the tokenizer == > > PRO: if we could come up with a way to perceive the stuff between > <template> and </template> as a character stream, we enable a set of > use cases where the template contents does not need to be a complete > HTML subtree. For example, I could define a template that sets up a > start of a table, then a few that provide repetition patterns for > rows/cells, and then one to close out a table: > > <template id="head"><table><caption>Nyan-nyan</caption><thead> ... > <tbody></template> > <template id="row"><tr><template><td> ... </td></template></tr></template> > <template id="foot"></tbody></table></template> > > Then I could slam these templates together with some API and produce > an arbitrary set of tables. > But that could be done in the second approach as well, right? All you need to do is replace "..." by <span class="placeholder"></span> and you can replace that element later by some API. > CON: Tokenizer needs to be really smart and will start looking a lot > like a specialized parser. At first glance, <template> behaves much > like a <textarea> -- any tags inside will just be treated as > characters. It works until you realize that templates sometimes need > to be nested. Any use case that involves building a > larger-than-one-dimensional data representation (like tables) will > involve nested templates. I think we should first discuss and agree on whether we want nested template elements or not, and how it should behave. It could be argued that--while pursuing the tokenizer algorithm > perfection--we could just stop at some point of complexity and issue a > stern warning for developers to not get too crazy, because stuff will > break -- akin to including "</script>" string in your Javascript code. > I don't think we want to introduce a new variant of </script>. It's way too complicated as is. PRO: It's a lot less intrusive to the parser -- just adjust insertion > modes to allow <template> tags in places where they would ordinary be > ignored or foster-parented, and add a new insertion for template > contents to let all tags in. I made a quick sketch here: > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/c96f051ca008/spec/templates/index.html#parsing > (Note: more massaging is needed to make it really work) > > CON: You can't address fun partial-tree scenarios. > Could you elaborate on this point? This approach seems much more manageable to implement and will have much less surprising behaviors. - Ryosuke
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:42:28 UTC