Re: [html-imports] Syntax is "mystic and daunting" [Was: Re: HTML5 includes from within ]

[anatoly techtonik]

Added an issue:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/280

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:48 PM, anatoly techtonik 
wrote:

> Hi Arthur,
>
> What is not clear in my previous mail? The non-mystic syntax is included
> there at the top.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Arthur Barstow 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Anatoly,
>>
>> Perhaps it would be helpful if you expanded on specific issues with the
>> HTML Imports syntax, either on this list or using an Issue <
>> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/labels/html-imports>.
>>
>> -Regards, ArtB
>>
>> On 7/14/15 3:32 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>
>>> 7 years ago the request to add  was blocked [1]
>>>
>>> 
>>>   
>>>   HTML5 body includes are unreadable
>>> 
>>>
>>> The reason was that parser has to block while the document
>>> is loading. Is that still actual for 2015?
>>>
>>> From the user experience standpoint I find the barrier for
>>> structuring HTML5 pages too high for newcomers. The simple
>>> include could greatly help people to work with HTML5 more
>>> easily and learn how to make their markup more readable.
>>> Custom elements are awesome when you're a coder, but no
>>> so awesome when you're just a journalist of designer.
>>>
>>> Even as experienced non-JS coder I find the current syntax
>>> for includes mystic and daunting [2]. The paradox is that for
>>> HTML5 includes it is not possible to know about HTML alone
>>> - need a good knowledge of CSS selectors, DOM and
>>> JavaScript to read the website.
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6875404/why-does-html5-not-include-a-way-of-loading-local-html-into-the-document
>>> 2.
>>> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webcomponents/imports/#usingcontent
>>>
>>> Please, CC.
>>> --
>>> anatoly t.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> anatoly t.
>



-- 
anatoly t.

Re: [html-imports] Syntax is "mystic and daunting" [Was: Re: HTML5 includes from within ]

[anatoly techtonik]

Hi Arthur,

What is not clear in my previous mail? The non-mystic syntax is included
there at the top.


On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Arthur Barstow 
wrote:

> Hi Anatoly,
>
> Perhaps it would be helpful if you expanded on specific issues with the
> HTML Imports syntax, either on this list or using an Issue <
> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/labels/html-imports>.
>
> -Regards, ArtB
>
> On 7/14/15 3:32 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>
>> 7 years ago the request to add  was blocked [1]
>>
>> 
>>   
>>   HTML5 body includes are unreadable
>> 
>>
>> The reason was that parser has to block while the document
>> is loading. Is that still actual for 2015?
>>
>> From the user experience standpoint I find the barrier for
>> structuring HTML5 pages too high for newcomers. The simple
>> include could greatly help people to work with HTML5 more
>> easily and learn how to make their markup more readable.
>> Custom elements are awesome when you're a coder, but no
>> so awesome when you're just a journalist of designer.
>>
>> Even as experienced non-JS coder I find the current syntax
>> for includes mystic and daunting [2]. The paradox is that for
>> HTML5 includes it is not possible to know about HTML alone
>> - need a good knowledge of CSS selectors, DOM and
>> JavaScript to read the website.
>>
>> 1.
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6875404/why-does-html5-not-include-a-way-of-loading-local-html-into-the-document
>> 2.
>> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webcomponents/imports/#usingcontent
>>
>> Please, CC.
>> --
>> anatoly t.
>>
>
>


-- 
anatoly t.

[html-imports] Syntax is "mystic and daunting" [Was: Re: HTML5 includes from within ]

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Anatoly,

Perhaps it would be helpful if you expanded on specific issues with the 
HTML Imports syntax, either on this list or using an Issue 
.


-Regards, ArtB

On 7/14/15 3:32 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:

7 years ago the request to add  was blocked [1]


  
  HTML5 body includes are unreadable


The reason was that parser has to block while the document
is loading. Is that still actual for 2015?

From the user experience standpoint I find the barrier for
structuring HTML5 pages too high for newcomers. The simple
include could greatly help people to work with HTML5 more
easily and learn how to make their markup more readable.
Custom elements are awesome when you're a coder, but no
so awesome when you're just a journalist of designer.

Even as experienced non-JS coder I find the current syntax
for includes mystic and daunting [2]. The paradox is that for
HTML5 includes it is not possible to know about HTML alone
- need a good knowledge of CSS selectors, DOM and
JavaScript to read the website.

1. 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6875404/why-does-html5-not-include-a-way-of-loading-local-html-into-the-document
2. 
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webcomponents/imports/#usingcontent


Please, CC.
--
anatoly t.

HTML5 includes from within

[anatoly techtonik]

7 years ago the request to add  was blocked [1]


  
  HTML5 body includes are unreadable


The reason was that parser has to block while the document
is loading. Is that still actual for 2015?

>From the user experience standpoint I find the barrier for
structuring HTML5 pages too high for newcomers. The simple
include could greatly help people to work with HTML5 more
easily and learn how to make their markup more readable.
Custom elements are awesome when you're a coder, but no
so awesome when you're just a journalist of designer.

Even as experienced non-JS coder I find the current syntax
for includes mystic and daunting [2]. The paradox is that for
HTML5 includes it is not possible to know about HTML alone
- need a good knowledge of CSS selectors, DOM and
JavaScript to read the website.

1.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6875404/why-does-html5-not-include-a-way-of-loading-local-html-into-the-document
2.
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webcomponents/imports/#usingcontent

Please, CC.
-- 
anatoly t.