From: hsivo...@gmail.com [mailto:hsivo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Henri Sivonen
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 7:00 AM
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Adam Klein ad...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Inspired by a conversation with hsivonen in #whatwg, I spend some
time thinking about how we would design template for an XML world.
One idea I had was to put the elements inside the template into a
namespace other than http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml.
On the face of things, this seems a lot less scary than the wormhole
model. I think this merits further exploration! Thank you!
Just to clarify, is what you find scary about the other model the lack of
support for XML, or something more?
I've been under the impression we're trying to shield HTML developers from
namespaces, so I'm a little concerned that this new proposal will move us in
the opposite direction. Sure I'd like a proposal that works for XML too, but
not if it means making the feature confusing for web developers.
Also, the elements inside template, though they appear to be HTML,
wouldn't have any of the IDL attributes one might expect, e.g., a
href=foo/a would have no href property in JS (nor would img
have src, etc). They are, perhaps, too inert.
I think that's not a problem, because you're not supposed to mutate the
template anyway. You're supposed to clone the template and then mutate
the clone.
I agree cloning is the main use case (and will probably require a dedicated API
since cloneNode won't cut it as-is), but I wouldn't rule out developers
altering templates dynamically. Under those conditions this exposes a lot of
subtle differences I think most developers won't expect or understand.
- Tony
