On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein <rafa...@google.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> > >> wrote: > >> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@google.com > > > >> > wrote: > >> >> We were thinking of adding innerHTML to DocumentFragments anyway... > >> >> right, Anne? > >> > > >> > Well I thought so, but that plan didn't work out at the end of the > day. > >> > > >> > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14694#c7 > >> > > >> > So given that consensus still putting it on ShadowRoot strikes me like > >> > a bad idea (as I think I've said somewhere in a bug). The same goes > >> > for various other members of ShadowRoot. > >> > >> I don't think there's a consensus really. JS authors were very vocal > >> about needing this ability. Does anyone have a link to the "strong > >> case against adding explicit API for DF.innerHTML" from Hixie that > >> that comment refers to? > > > > > > Unfortunately that comment referred to an IRC discussion that took place > > last June on #whatwg. > > > > IIRC, Hixie's position was that adding more explicit API for innerHTML > is a > > moral hazard because it encourages an anti-pattern. (Also IIRC), Anne and > > Henri both sided with Hixie at the time and the DF.innerHTML got left in > a > > ditch. > > The "discouraging" that we're currently doing doesn't seem terribly > effective. Developers seem to just grab/create a random element and > set .innerHTML on that. > > So I think the current state of affairs is just doing a disservice to > everyone, including ourselves. > I agree, and this was my position at the time, FWIW. > > / Jonas >
