- From: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:41:16 -0700
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, Ian Hickson <ianh@google.com>
Looks good. Thanks so much, Robin. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 19/06/2013 04:05 , Rafael Weinstein wrote: >> >> Note that this doesn't cover monkey-patches other specs: >> >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html#node-clone-additions > > > I believe that's covered. If you look at the last paragraph in: > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/templating.html#the-template-element > > This plugs into step 5 in: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#concept-node-clone > > which is precisely the extension point that's required. I'm happy for > suggestions as to how to make this clearer. > >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html#innerhtml-on-templates > > > Yes, that's why I copied Travis. Travis? > > One option is that we could have a similar extensibility point in innerHTML, > rather than change it directly. > >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html#parsing-xhtml-documents > > > I've added the relevant text here: > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/the-xhtml-syntax.html#parsing-xhtml-documents > > (just below the note on document.write()). Is that okay? > >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html#serializing-xhtml-documents > > > Likewise, I've added the text at the bottom of: > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/the-xhtml-syntax.html#serializing-xhtml-fragments > > >> Here are the issues I see: >> >> Section name: Again, I suggest "HTML Templates" rather than "HTML >> Templating" to minimize confusion. > > > Yup, done. (Though it's just "Templates" since pretty much everything in > there is "HTML".) > > >> 4.4 Templating >> >> -Typo, 4th paragraph: "and its contents be any content" => "and its >> contents CAN be any content" > > > Fixed. > > >> 4.4.1 Defs: >> >> -Typo, "The template contents are be a DocumentFragment whose" => "The >> template contents must be a DocumentFragment whose" > > > Fixed. > > >> 4.4.2 The template element: >> >> -I'm not sure the "Contexts" defined as metadata and flow content is >> sufficient. For example, the children of <table> are not "flow >> content", but <template> is allowed within those contexts. > > > Indeed, I'm unsure why I changed that. Fixed. > > >> -The NOTE here is trying to prevent DOM hierarchy cycles. The WHATWG >> DOM has addressed this here: >> http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#mutation-algorithms by checking the >> host-inclusive ancestor. I don't see equivalent language in the W3C >> DOM spec. It may still be worth an editorial note, but I think it's >> better to point to the pre-insert language which prevents the cycle. > > > Right, but I've been operating under the assumption that the WHATWG DOM and > the W3C DOM would be the same, if not now at least soon. That would address > this concern, right? (In which case we can drop this note.) I'd really > rather we didnt' make our specs defensive against such disparities but > instead made sure our dependencies are aligned. > > Currently the W3C HTML spec refers to the WHATWG DOM anyway, so I think > we're covered :) > > Or am I missing something? > > >> 8.2.5.4 Template Parenting >> >> I think "parenting" suggests that the template will get a new parent >> (e.g. with "fosterparenting"). How about "template content kidnapping" >> (only half-joking -- we do have "call the foster agency"). Another >> idea "Template Content Parenting" or "Template Content Redirection" > > > "Template content kidnapping" was very tempting, but there may be such a > thing as enough of a good joke and I reckon the thread of children jokes in > the parsing algorithm might fall in that category :) > > I went with "template content parenting". > > >> 8.2.5.3 Foster Parenting >> >> I think the foster parenting description is now complex enough that it >> should be factored into an algorithm which selects the foster parent. >> As it is right now, it's not clear whether the steps apply in order or >> not (if they apply in order, I think they might be wrong). > > > I agree, but I reckon that's a separate issue. Do you mind filing a bug? > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22439 > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 00:41:43 UTC