This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 16789 - specify parsing of the template element
Summary: specify parsing of the template element
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robin Berjon
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard: exclusion
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-04-18 18:30 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2013-07-05 10:04 UTC (History)
12 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description contributor 2012-04-18 18:30:49 UTC
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#tree-construction
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#tree-construction

Comment:
specify parsing of the template element

Posted from: 2620:0:1002:1005:72cd:60ff:feab:f3a
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_8) AppleWebKit/536.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/19.0.1084.24 Safari/536.5
Comment 2 contributor 2012-07-18 07:19:01 UTC
This bug was cloned to create bug 17930 as part of operation convergence.
Comment 3 Robin Berjon 2013-01-21 15:58:33 UTC
Mass move to "HTML WG"
Comment 4 Robin Berjon 2013-01-21 16:01:20 UTC
Mass move to "HTML WG"
Comment 5 Travis Leithead [MSFT] 2013-03-21 23:52:52 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> Comment:
> specify parsing of the template element

Is the intention to integrate the parsing rules from https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html#parsing into HTML5 proper? Is it not sufficient to have them included in the template document itself?

Alternatively, are you wanting "template" to be listed in the "special" category as we do for MathML/SVG elements which are included directly in the spec as having varying levels of special parsing rules?

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/syntax.html#special
Comment 6 Anne 2013-03-22 12:30:11 UTC
Yes, <template> should eventually be part of the HTML parser specification.
Comment 7 Rafael Weinstein 2013-03-28 17:09:10 UTC
Agree.
Comment 8 Robin Berjon 2013-04-12 09:59:45 UTC
I agree that they should be included. Doing so is largely a matter of them being sufficiently agreed upon. If that's the case we can go ahead.

Having tests would also be most helpful.
Comment 9 Robin Berjon 2013-06-14 12:55:52 UTC
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Accepted
Change Description: landed the template element
Rationale: It doesn't make sense to keep it outside.

The relevant changes are:

https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/2502feb541063a3834f1ef07e2a23d0824d96914
https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/daaf6bc1e76365b6678a14b47954bcf9c5db54c6
Comment 10 Silvia Pfeiffer 2013-07-05 10:04:31 UTC
I have applied Ian's merges to keep the differences to the WHATWG spec minimal.

Please review these patches:
https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/8e127db936c0c5831ab8095e8badcd9e744a5b11
https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/9f276deb4a20dd605d5490bef1c0e912f319fc40
https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/434b34afabe0b3dd8a11fcfee1ef801fc1e913b9

I have left several non-normative paragraphs from the W3C merging, but marked them with <!--FORK-->. I have replaced all the normative wording with Ian's, which seemed to be more complete.

Ian made a thorough list of his decisions at:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17930

Please review!