- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 23:21:53 +0200
- To: "Dimitri Glazkov" <dglazkov@chromium.org>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Hajime Morrita" <morrita@google.com>
On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:13:13 +0200, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> wrote: > 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. That seems to be an argument based on aesthetics. That's worth considering, of course, but I think is a relatively weak argument. In particular I care about the first bullet point above. <link> is not capable of executing script from an external resource today. What are the implications if it suddenly gains that ability? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 21:22:26 UTC