I can't think of any reason I would want to be able to mess with an import link ex-post-facto and have it do anything. I would also expect any registrations to be final and have no particular connection to the link tag itself. Now, this may be tangential, but users definitely need a way of loading imports dynamically. I believe the current gambit would be to inject a fresh link tag into head, which seems like the long way around Hogan's barn. I've been meaning to ask about the possibility of an imperative 'import' method. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > > http://w3cmemes.tumblr.com/post/34633601085/grumpy-old-maciej-has-a-question-about-your-spec > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> > wrote: > > On the second thought: why not make imports dynamic, just like > stylesheets? > > > > :DG< > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> > wrote: > >>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Hajime Morrita <morrita@google.com> > wrote: > >>>> Just after started prototyping HTML Imports on Blink, this idea comes > to my > >>>> mind: Why not have <import> for HTML Imports? > >>> > >>> Because changing parsing for <head> is not done, basically. > >>> > >>> rel=import not being dynamic kinda sucks though. Maybe we should > >>> consider using <meta>? It has a bunch of uses that are non-dynamic. > >> > >> I used <link> primarily because most of the <link rel="stylesheet"> > >> plumbing seems to fit best with <link rel="import">. > >> > >> Interesting idea about <meta>... > >> > >> :DG< > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 20:02:15 UTC