Re: <element> Needs A Beauty Nap from Daniel Buchner on 2013-08-13 (public-webapps@w3.org from July to September 2013)

From: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:16:09 -0700
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Cc: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Message-ID: <CAHZ6zJEmMmx702Ka1kR8H7Q_0NNCkC5wRgxkJVBjzKZ7QAf3tQ@mail.gmail.com>

"Yep. HTML Imports are standing on their own."

Dimitri, did I ever tell you you're my hero? (#ProTip: to get the full
effect, sing it with that Bette Midler tone)


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
> wrote:
> > Quick question: Will we still be able to land HTML Imports sans any
> Custom
> > Element reliance/support? I'd like to retain the ability to import HTML
> > files unbound from the parsing of <element> declarations. A significant
> > use-case is easily importing a bunch of <template> elements for use in
> the
> > main document - let's not throw the baby out with the bath water (maybe
> this
> > is already the thinking?)
>
> Yep. HTML Imports are standing on their own.
>
> :DG<
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 17:17:08 UTC