On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 10 May 2012, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> >> Still, requiring an explicit context declaration *at all* defeats
>> >> most of the purpose of the API. Again, if we don't auto-detect SVG
>> >> (so that "<rect>" just parses as HTMLUnknownElement by default), we
>> >> haven't gained much, since authors will *still* have to wrap their
>> >> code in a regex-based detector if they expect to ever use SVG. (An
>> >> optional context declaration that lets you determine which way the
>> >> tagname conflicts go is fine, of course.)
>> >
>> > Can you elaborate on the use case for parsing markup into a document
>> > fragment when you don't know where you'll be putting the document
>> > fragment or what kind of content is in it?
>>
>> That's pretty much exactly the description of the jQuery $("[markup goes
>> here]") functionality, which has been cited multiple times as the
>> justification for this functionality. A previous thread about this
>> functionality was started by Yehuda Katz from jQuery about that exact
>> function, asking for this functionality.
>
> Yes, I understand that. But what's the use case?
The use-case is to provide a more convenient API for developers.
The whole purpose of this thread is to provide a convenience API which
provides context-free parsing. If we don't care about providing such
convenience for authors we should just tell them to use the
already-defined .innerHTML or a custom HTML parser and this whole
thread is just moot.
/ Jonas
