[whatwg] A link[scoped] usecase

Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu kennyluck at csail.mit.edu
Fri Mar 2 10:58:24 PST 2012

(12/03/03 2:13), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On the other hand, why is it bad for browsers and the Web platform to
>> support @scoped on <link>?
> Because it's an additional feature that adds no power.

I doubt most people will see this as a new feature. If implementation
cost of @scoped on <link> isn't much, this really is just different
opinions on the syntax.

> As well, right now the *only* purpose of a <link> in the <body> is to
> function as a hidden source of url-flavored data for Microdata, if you
> find empty <a>s distasteful.

I wonder how important keeping the <link> out of <body> is. Perhaps the
Web platform would be cleaner that way? I don't know.

> @import is just fine - it lets you modularize your files without having to 
> change/add <link>s in all your documents.

I don't understand this statement. Could you explain more?

>> The argument here is that I think <style>@import</style> might have
>> usability problem (and also you need more work if want to switch the
>> style. This could happen, for example, when the theme panel as described
>> in this use case is a <div> with a <select>.). A reader of html5doctor
>> had the same problem too[2] and I can certainly image other people being
>> confused by this.
> What usability problems are you suggesting?

I don't have the resource to do a well-designed usability experiment
here, but I am almost very sure if you:

1. Gather a bunch of Web Developers who didn't know <style scope>.
2. Teach them <style scope>.
3. Ask them to build something like the one described by GZhang.

The first thing most people will try is <link scoped>. After they fail,
the experienced ones will find the <style scoped>@import</style>
solution on Google, and the less-experienced ones might start to do XHR,
which doesn't seem like a very good solution.


More information about the whatwg mailing list