- From: Dean Edwards <dean@edwards.name>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:25:20 +0100
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Dean Edwards wrote: > >>but i have some reservations. i'm confused by the <repeat> element. this >>is the first time i've seen such a construct in an xml language. if this >>kind of construct is normal, please ignore the rest of my comments and >>direct me to a suitable resource so i can do some reading! > >>it seems like the <repeat> element is more like a programming >>instruction than real content. > > True. We could use a PI instead, but I don't think IE supports that (you > wouldn't be able to tell there was a PI in the DOM, right?). > i just checked. they show up as comments! but they are readable. so if you are concerned with IE compatibility we could use a PI. > >>imho, something like the <repeat> construct belongs in the realm of >>jsp/asp/php. maybe this functionality can be included as a DOM method >>for completeness? > > > It is a DOM method too. In fact, it's defined in terms of two DOM methods. > And it could indeed be done on the server side, although it would be a > lot uglier. > > Should I just remove it for now? > i'm not sure. i understand now how it is two DOM methods: this: <div id="hello-again" repeat="template">Hello World</div> <repeat/> <repeat/> <repeat/> <repeat/> is equivalent to this: <div id="hello-again" repeat="template">Hello World</div> <script> var template = document.getElementById("hello-again"); template.addRepetitionBlock(); template.addRepetitionBlock(); template.addRepetitionBlock(); template.addRepetitionBlock(); </script> i can see that one form is much nicer to read than the other. but only for a few elements. if i'm repeating a hundred rows it becomes easier in javascript (maybe add another attribute for the number of repeats?). i think if something like this does go in the markup then maybe it should be a PI. i'm just not convinced either way. what do others feel? -dean
Received on Sunday, 13 June 2004 14:25:20 UTC