Re: [html-imports] Syntax is "mystic and daunting" [Was: Re: HTML5 includes from within <body>]

Hi Arthur,

What is not clear in my previous mail? The non-mystic syntax is included
there at the top.


On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Anatoly,
>
> Perhaps it would be helpful if you expanded on specific issues with the
> HTML Imports syntax, either on this list or using an Issue <
> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/labels/html-imports>.
>
> -Regards, ArtB
>
> On 7/14/15 3:32 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>
>> 7 years ago the request to add <body> was blocked [1]
>>
>>     <body>
>>       <include src = "header.html"/>
>>       <content>HTML5 body includes are unreadable</content>
>>     </body>
>>
>> The reason was that parser has to block while the document
>> is loading. Is that still actual for 2015?
>>
>> From the user experience standpoint I find the barrier for
>> structuring HTML5 pages too high for newcomers. The simple
>> include could greatly help people to work with HTML5 more
>> easily and learn how to make their markup more readable.
>> Custom elements are awesome when you're a coder, but no
>> so awesome when you're just a journalist of designer.
>>
>> Even as experienced non-JS coder I find the current syntax
>> for includes mystic and daunting [2]. The paradox is that for
>> HTML5 includes it is not possible to know about HTML alone
>> - need a good knowledge of CSS selectors, DOM and
>> JavaScript to read the website.
>>
>> 1.
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6875404/why-does-html5-not-include-a-way-of-loading-local-html-into-the-document
>> 2.
>> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webcomponents/imports/#usingcontent
>>
>> Please, CC.
>> --
>> anatoly t.
>>
>
>


-- 
anatoly t.

Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2015 13:48:56 UTC