- From: Peter Gasston <pgasston@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:17:27 +0100
- To: softwatt <softwatt@gmx.com>
- Cc: lee@leegoddard.net, www-talk@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAGNZe2XEPPRyr9aEcBogfU9uCDji0OFgkuLJh7JSSGDOrNrJyQ@mail.gmail.com>
I suggest you take a look at <core-ajax>, a Polymer-based custom element which seems to be what you’re describing: http://www.polymer-project.org/docs/elements/core-elements.html#core-ajax On 28 September 2014 11:38, softwatt <softwatt@gmx.com> wrote: > On 09/28/2014 01:31 PM, Lee Goddard wrote: > > > > On 28/09/2014 11:26, softwatt wrote: > >> On 09/28/2014 01:20 PM, Lee Goddard wrote: > >>> On 28/09/2014 10:48, softwatt wrote: > >>>> Iframes are extremely limited in comparison to this. Only a "box" can > >>>> be updated without any interaction whatsoever with the rest of the > >>>> document, appending is non existent, and long-polling is not > >>>> practical. > >>>> > >>> A native way to transclude markup to a node in the DOM, seems very much > >>> in the spirit of the times. I can't say the same for the way you > >>> specified attributes — seems to repeat the bungle seen in HTTP headers > — > >>> and I'm not sure about the need for any other than a URI, but I watch > >>> with interest to see how this progresses. > >> Http headers are indeeed a mess. (Though I think one needs atleast > >> URI+Cookies). > >> > >> But Could you explain how this "seems to repeat the bungle seen in HTTP > >> headers"? Don't you think that the current AJAX is the actual bungle and > >> that this is a step towards simplicity? > >> > > Sorry — the bungle would be the way the attributes were specified as > > semi-colon-delimited strings, rather than true attributes. > > Oh. Sorry for misinterpreting that. I don't really mind making them > separate. > > A general question: Do suggestions posted on a humble mailing list ever > make it anywhere nowadays? If not, what additional steps would one need > to take in order to put an idea into practice? > >
Received on Sunday, 28 September 2014 18:18:15 UTC