Comment by nofriend
14 hours ago
Very odd proposal. The new element syntax is perhaps the boldest choice. I wonder why they thought that was necessary. The idea of using this to defer rendering elements is also odd. So this would use a http long polling style? It really goes against several decades of progress in the web platform, where by now it's long established that you do this sort of thing with xhr. I'm amazed that they even put this in chrome, let along are saying things like "let sites use this new functionality right away even before this lands in other browsers" as if it's a sure thing.
The new element syntax is needed to signify DOM ranges that may cross the boundaries of HTML element trees.
Jake Archibald at Mozilla has a good video about this. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yARSOcqOWvY
I am puzzled then: so what would happen if the template will replace this island form your example with markup without closing `</em>`?
Which, by the HTML standard, will automatically close the `</em>` as the `</p>` closes.
2 replies →
Oh nooooooo are you kidding? That's beyond horrific.
That's really really really awful
As far as I can tell, this is not actually allowed by the current proposal. The definition of the "find markers" algorithm in https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/11818 requires that the <?end> marker be a sibling of the <?start> marker in the DOM, so they can't have different parents like this.
Well, you're allowed to write it, but the browser will just ignore the <?end> marker. The range will end at the </em> tag, the same place https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates/blob/mai... says it goes by default if you don't write the <?end> at all. (That default wouldn't make a ton of sense if patch ranges were allowed to break out of their parent elements like this.)
Jake Archibald thinks it'd be cool to use a similar syntax to do CSS highlights, but there are other problems with that (like not being able to create overlapping ranges), and he's not on the Chrome team that's pushing this proposal.
2 replies →
> It really goes against several decades of progress in the web platform, where by now it's long established that you do this sort of thing with xhr.
Well yes, because no better technology existed. I don't see what kind if experience proved that writing a million imperative ad-hoc solutions for out-of-order loading would be better than a standardized solution.
> The new element syntax is perhaps the boldest choice
Probably to not break anything in older browsers which hasn't adopted it yet: new tag will be simply ignored, that's my thinking
> I'm amazed that they even put this in chrome, let along are saying things like "let sites use this new functionality right away even before this lands in other browsers"
It is behind the flag, like every other new proposal they made. Even though some dev would like to use it right now (for regular site visitors, not for self testing), she can't.
It's also a processing instruction rather than an element, which makes it possible to put it inside e.g. a <table> element and partially replace some rows.
How would you expect it to be in all the browsers before one of the browsers ships it first? We are seeking as much consensus as we can. It's an odd expectation.
The odd thing is the non conditional "before it lands" rather than "if it lands".
Are you referring to the sentence about the polyfill? Seems like "shipping a polyfill for X before X lands in all browsers" is a reasonable thing to say? Donno