- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 20:04:07 -0700
- To: Hajime Morrita <morrita@google.com>
- Cc: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Apparently I wasn't clear enough before. We shouldn't add dynamically updating imports of components just because we're choosing to reuse <link>. We add dynamic imports if there are use cases. So far no-one has presented any use cases. And IMO we shouldn't treat <link rel=import> as "dynamic" by enabling it to point to new URLs to import additional components while still leaving the old components in place. That seems like very confusing behavior and introduces a lot of edge cases. We (or at least I) did intentionally not make <script src> work this way since it just felt confusing. It's not a lot of overhead to ask people to simply create a new <link> element. / Jonas On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Hajime Morrita <morrita@google.com> wrote: > Thanks for your feedback, folks. > > I presumed that <link rel="import"> is one-shot just because it is how > <element> works and I felt both are analogous, but apparently this is not a > common perception. > > It seems like making <link rel="import"> dynamically-updatable isn't that > controversial. I'll try that way. > Filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20683 >
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 03:05:05 UTC