[html-imports] Syntax is mystic and daunting [Was: Re: HTML5 includes from within body]
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 body was blocked [1] body include src = header.html/ contentHTML5 body includes are unreadable/content /body 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.
Re: [html-imports] Syntax is mystic and daunting [Was: Re: HTML5 includes from within body]
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 art.bars...@gmail.com 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 body was blocked [1] body include src = header.html/ contentHTML5 body includes are unreadable/content /body 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.
Re: [html-imports] Syntax is mystic and daunting [Was: Re: HTML5 includes from within body]
Added an issue: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/280 On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:48 PM, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com 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 art.bars...@gmail.com 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 body was blocked [1] body include src = header.html/ contentHTML5 body includes are unreadable/content /body 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.
