Have you looked at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0663.html ?
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
> The main points of contention in the discussion about the template element
> are
>
> 1) By what mechanism are its content elements 'inert'
> 2) D
I'd like to weigh in on this topic as it is something that I'm involved in
at work as well.
Could you maybe explain further "parsing the template contents as HTML
can contain sub templates"?
If you take this example:
Are you saying there is 1 Node that has a 3 children? If "y
The main points of contention in the discussion about the template element are
1) By what mechanism are its content elements 'inert'
2) Do template contents reside in the document, or outside of it
What doesn't appear to be controversial is the parser changes which
would allow the template elemen
Yes. I think this issue is a distraction.
Using the script tag for encoding opaque text contents is a hack, but
it works as well as it can. AFAIC, The main drawback is that the
contents cannot contain the string "". This will be the case
for any new element we came up with for this purpose.
If so
Why don't we just use script elements for that then?
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Yuval Sadan wrote:
> You musn't forget what we're not planning for. Templates can be great for
> so many applications - generating code (JSON, Javascript), generating
> plain-text or otherwise formatted (markdo
You musn't forget what we're not planning for. Templates can be great for
so many applications - generating code (JSON, Javascript), generating
plain-text or otherwise formatted (markdown, restructured text, etc.)
content and much more. I don't think templates should be parsed by DOM
unless explici
On 4/18/2012 2:54 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> I am also pretty scared of tokenising stuff like it is markup but then
> sticking it into a different document. It seems like very surprising
> behaviour. Have you considered (and this may be a very bad idea) exposing
> the markup inside the temp
FWIW: my proposal (already successfully rejected) for custom elements (real
custom elements with really arbitrary tag names allowed) in W3 bug tracker from
2011-09-03:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14011
BTW, it seems local semantics (what my proposal is about and what you are
Eric Meyer (cc'd) posted an intriguing article about custom tags and
local semantics:
http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2012/04/10/element-customization/
I must say, even though the current direction we take with Web
Components does not involve custom tags, I still find the current,
"is" attribut
