W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2011

[whatwg] Declarative Inert DOM (e.g. the <template> element)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:27:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCQicLdBafpNUcf0YSusiad_VjnkJzCY2i8DfR4KSN+qA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw at chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw at chromium.org> wrote:
>>> For parsing, the template element's contents are treated as HTML, but
>>> aren't subjected to normalization or placement/lifting rules.
>> For the placement/lifting rules, we can ride on the coattails of the
>> innerHTML parsing discussion, which wants to add a "null context"
>> parsing mode to the HTML parser.
>> What's the reasoning for not doing attribute normalization? ?By that I
>> assume you mean translating boolean attributes into having their name
>> as their value?
> Many inert declarations will contain text in content attributes which
> represent future replacement instructions. E.g.
> <input tabIndex="{{ foo.bar.tabIndex }}">
> Note that I'm picking an arbitrary replacement syntax here. Different
> template libraries or uses of inert DOM will have different syntax.
> The key is that the inert DOM is parse-able as HTML, but that the
> contents of attributes and text nodes are left alone while the
> elements are in the inert state (kept verbatim in the attribute map)
> I think it's an expectable trade-off for all uses that their
> replacement syntax can't interfere with HTML parsing, as what they get
> from this is quite a bit of convenience and safety.

Oh, I see what you mean now.  Yes, agreed.

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 14:27:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:37 UTC