- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Wrigley, Ave wrote: > > Fair point, but there are already a number of other languages that > already appear in HTML pages (scripting, CSS). Admittedly this is > generally fudged to make them valid HTML by putting them in comments and > such, and perhaps the point of WhatWG to to get away from this kind of > kludge. However, is there any reason in principle that you couldn't use > a separate template syntax (so long as it can be dealt elegantly by > non-compliant browsers)? Not particularly, if someone can come up with a good way of doing it. It has to cope with being pre-filled (the way that you can prefill forms in WF2 now, even with repetition templates). It has to cope with the DOM and CSS. It has to be backwards-compatible (to a reasonable extent). Note that the repetition stiff in WF2 was never meant to be a generic repetition system. It's meant specifically for repeating form sections in HTML. If we have a need for a generic template system, we should address that for Web Apps 1.0. However, I haven't seen much demand for it, apart from the "it would be nice" kind. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 21 August 2004 17:07:37 UTC