- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:36:08 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Hajime Morrita <morrita@google.com>, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > 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. I agree, but I am not stressed either way. Making imports dynamic is the least work, since we simply follow how <link> works in all other cases. Making imports non-dynamic is just a matter of a "have-I-ever-been-an-import" flag per <link>, and that's also quite easy. > > 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. I am fine with making <link> non-dynamic in spec, at least for now. I'll repurpose Morrita-san's bug for that. :DG<
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 16:36:36 UTC