- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:13:13 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Hajime Morrita <morrita@google.com>
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