For the first time in my life I support JavaScript. But I want to see where this idea will go. Here other 2 virtual cents: please, if it ends up as a way to improve the template element somehow compatibly with the current standard, and if it reveals to be viable, try turning it into a proposal for an HTML5.x feature instead of brand new stuff.
2015-03-25 0:50 GMT+01:00 Michael A. Peters <mpet...@domblogger.net>: > I see JavaScript as a useful tool that is seriously abused by many devs, > I'm against this. But if you do it, make damn sure it has proper CSP > support. > > On March 24, 2015 2:18:53 AM PDT, Bobby Mozumder <mozum...@futureclaw.com> > wrote: > >https://github.com/mozumder/HTML6 > > > >I’ll be updating that Github with more ideas and refinement about the > >proposal with occasional feedback into this list. Since this is > >getting some attention it’s probably better to place the ideas in a > >setting that can be updated/modified than to discuss it informally via > >email over here. This is still at the concept phase and I’ll be > >looking at feedback from other people as well as other frameworks to > >see the good they offered as well as what caused them to fail. > > > >In this version, a key change is that I added an MREF property to <A> > >elements to separate the canonical URL from an API URL, and a RECEIVER > >property to specify where the API data loads: > > > > <A href=“http://www.mywebsite.com/article-2.html"; > >mref=“http://api.mywebsite.com/article-2"; receiver="MyArticleData"> > > > >The MREF will maintain backwards compatibility. You can use the same > >web page in an older browser and it operates fine, it just won’t load > >API endpoints, but will reload full page from the HREF. And previously > >I had a MODEL property in place of RECEIVER, but that's the overall > >model’s outlet for all elements, not a receiver model, which can be > >different. Adding a MODEL property would load the model’s properties > >into the HREF and/or <A> element. > > > >I also changed the fixtures in the example from XML to JSON. I always > >thought XML was more readable when mixed with HTML, but it looks like > >people prefer reading JSON? > > > >Meanwhile, it looks like the people most into Javascript are against > >this, and the people that prefer to avoid Javascript like this. > > > >I get that most people here are in the “Javascript everywhere!” camp > >but there definitely is a large class of people out there that prefer > >to minimize their use of Javascript whenever possible and just want to > >deal with the declarative HTML system. These are content managers, and > >Javascript components are largely in the UI design domain, not the > >content domain that many web developers are coming from. How many UI > >design experts are out there? And how many of them like working with > >Javascript, instead of Swift or something else? You’re competing > >against that. > > > >Also I feel you shouldn’t have to prototype new HTML elements as > >Javascript components to advance HTML. That’s a huge barrier to its > >development, as now you need to do that first. Very few people will do > >so for a standards body. The components they make are going to be very > >specific to their needs. Plus, browser makers aren’t going to write > >them, so you just forced them to wait for someone else to design these > >components first, when they already know the problems their users are > >experiencing and can fix them already. And if your site can do it with > >a custom component then why bother putting it into the standard? > > > >Finally, aren’t people already doing this sort of prototyping anyways > >with the Javascript frameworks? At a high-level, they’re all basically > >prototyping an entire MVC use model, with just implementation > >differences between them. Isn’t that enough to cause HTML to be > >updated to fit this MVC design pattern? It’s a basic issue in the > >design of the web. > > > >-bobby > >--- > >Bobby Mozumder > >Editor-in-Chief > >FutureClaw Magazine > >mozum...@futureclaw.com <mailto:mozum...@futureclaw.com> > >+1-240-745-5287 > >www.futureclaw.com <http://www.futureclaw.com/> > >twitter.com/futureclaw <https://www.twitter.com/futureclaw> > >www.linkedin.com/in/mozumder <http://www.linkedin.com/in/mozumder> > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >
