Re: webcomponents: <import> instead of <link>

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> I have proposed <script import=url></script> instead of <link rel=import
> href=url> before.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0009.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0024.html
>
> Benefits:
>
>  * Components can execute script from an external resource, which <script
> src> can do as well, so that seems like a good fit in terms of security
> policy and expectations in Web sites and browsers.
>  * <script src> is not dynamic, so making <script import> also not dynamic
> seems like a good fit.
>  * <script> can appear in <head> without making changes to the HTML parser
> (in contrast with a new element).
>
> To pre-empt confusion shown last time I suggested this:
>
>  * This is not <script src>.
>  * This is not changing anything of the component itself.

Both <meta> and <script> somewhat fail the taste test for me. I am not
objecting, just alerting of the weakness of stomach.

<link rel="import"> has near-perfect semantics. It fails in the
implementation specifics (the dynamic nature).

Both <meta> and <script> are mis-declarations. An HTML Import is
neither script nor metadata.

:DG<

Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 21:13:41 UTC