4 ms·
API proposed by Chrome: Declarative partial updates
- michaelmrose 5mo agoSo htmx?
- iddan 5mo agoBut native
- nomsternom 5mo agoDefinitely an inspiration but less opinionated.
- niutech 5mo agoYou don't need HTMX, there is 160-bytes HTMZ: https://leanrada.com/htmz/ https://leanrada.com/htmz/
- nofriend 5mo agoVery 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.
- dfabulich 5mo agoThe new element syntax is needed to signify DOM ranges that may cross the boundaries of HTML element trees. <p> <em>Some <?start name="hl"?>text</em> to replace<?end name="hl"?>. </p> Jake Archibald at Mozilla has a good video about this. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yARSOcqOWvY https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yARSOcqOWvY
- kkarpkkarp 5mo agoI am puzzled then: so what would happen if the template will replace this island form your example with markup without closing `</em>`?
- dfabulich 5mo ago<p> <em>Some replaced text </p> Which, by the HTML standard, will automatically close the `</em>` as the `</p>` closes.
- csande17 5mo agoIt would be pretty wild if this feature allowed you to go back and add/remove individual tokens from earlier in the document and re-apply all the tree construction rules, like an even more unhinged version of document.write(). I think the actual proposal is expressed in terms of moving DOM nodes around and doesn't allow stuff like this.
- nomsternom 5mo agoIt's expressed in terms of changing the output of where bides are inserted. Instead of new nodes being inserted to the template elements, they are inserted where the processing instructions were found.
- conartist6 5mo agoOh nooooooo are you kidding? That's beyond horrific. That's really really really awful
- csande17 5mo agoAs 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 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/main/patching-explainer.md#proposed-markup 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.
- kkarpkkarp 5mo ago> 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.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- nomsternom 5mo agoIt'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.
- mgr86 5mo agoI think semantically this is the perfect choice. Considering the history and intended use of PI. As an aside, I’m still rather annoyed that web components use hyphens. I really thought colon’s and namespaces made perfect sense there.
- xg15 5mo ago> 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.
- nomsternom 5mo agoHow 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.
- nofriend 5mo agoThe odd thing is the non conditional "before it lands" rather than "if it lands".
- nomsternom 5mo agoAre 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
- ComputerGuru 5mo agoIs this a Google-only proposal? Has Mozilla provided their thoughts on the matter?
- dfabulich 5mo agoWhen you have questions like this, the best places to check are the "standards positions" Github repositories for Mozilla and WebKit. https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1369 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1369 Mozilla hasn't officially weighed in, but one decision maker (hsivonen) did vote in favor of it. Apple WebKit is officially in favor of it, as of just a few days ago. https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/628 https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/628
- JimDabell 5mo agoAs far as I can see out-of-order streaming is only half the described functionality – there is also HTML streaming & revamped DOM parsing which does not have the positive signals that out-of-order streaming does: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1370 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1370 https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/629 https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/629
- nomsternom 5mo agoYea we've been working with Mozilla and Apple on that one as well but they haven't responded to the standards position yet. I am sure that we'll reach something that's within consensus.
- nomsternom 5mo agoWe've worked on the design closely together with Mozilla/Apple folks and with multiple external partners that want to use it.
- fg137 5mo agoI scanned the page but didn't get -- why? What problem does it solve? Why is a browser in the business of taking care of content update? How is this better than existing solutions?
- dfabulich 5mo agoThe WICG explainers do a somewhat better job than this article. https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates/blob/main/patching-explainer.md https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates/blob/mai...
- trueno 5mo agoFrom what I read, think HTMX. HTML streams top to bottom so this proposal means out of order streaming of html things. So handles a lot of delivery/rendering stuff that's frontloaded with react/js/etc. It doesn't touch state management though. Don't use chrome anymore but, I dunno if all browsers came to the table and unified behind something like this I'd be all about it. Most of the web stacks seem like some weird polished turd solution where we started frontloading more and more onto javascript, so I am amusingly not against this proposal. Feel like it could be a step into a better direction for web technologies, which feel like a very odd/lost ship in the world of software.
- lenkite 5mo ago> How is this better than existing solutions? For one - will not need to write JS or bundle a JS library to do this if it has native platform support.
- BigJono 5mo agoWtf? I can't really tell how you'd even use this. Is it supposed to be some sort of micro-optimisation thing to do with how HTML is parsed (now you can download chunks out of order, presumably with some performance gains since it's browser native?). When I saw the title I was hoping it was going to be a very simple React-like API for constantly updating parts of the DOM with maximum performance since the browser devs are now involved. It doesn't look like that's what this is at all. And all these years later I'm still wondering why browsers aren't implementing an API like that when it's been obvious for over a decade now that real-time DOM updates are a vital browser feature that needs to be performant, and that developers vastly prefer a declarative model to a procedural one. Why after 15-16 years are we still building 100 versions of the same abstraction in user-land to turn Element.append into "refresh these elements when this data changes"?
- khana 5mo ago[dead]
- dfabulich 5mo agoDeclarative partial updating "sets the stage for client-side includes." https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates The linked article suggests a potential syntax: <template for="footer" patchsrc="/partials/footer.html"> That would transclude the content of /partials/footer.html in your HTML. But the road ahead for this is still quite bumpy. Here's a good video from a year ago, talking through the obstacles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0NBcve0enY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0NBcve0enY
- jeroenhd 5mo agoVery funny so see such an XML like syntax right after deciding to rip XML support out of Chrome. We're watching Google reinvent XSLT in real time, but now with tons of Javascript glue for some reason.
- conartist6 5mo agoIs anyone talking about any web page being a zip bomb even without JS turned on?
- nomsternom 5mo agoHow would that work? I think you posted something on the github but I don't think what you're conceiving here is possible with this API. It just reroutes HTML insertions from the template to a different location, there is no duplication.
- csande17 5mo agoThe Content-Encoding header allows any page to be a literal zip-bomb. That's how early versions of Tailwind worked; you'd deliver a 50KB Brotli payload that exploded into 2MB of CSS ( https://v1.tailwindcss.com/docs/controlling-file-size https://v1.tailwindcss.com/docs/controlling-file-size ). So pages potentially being zip-bombs is already a well-accepted part of the Web platform.
- nomsternom 5mo agoSure, but how is this related to out of order streaming?
- conartist6 5mo ago<div> <?marker name="placeholder2"> </div> <template for="placeholder2"> <?marker name="placeholder1"> <?marker name="placeholder1"> </template> <template for="placeholder1"> <?marker name="placeholder"> <?marker name="placeholder"> </template> <template for="placeholder"> Here is some <em>HTML content</em>! </template> Before you couldn't make this dangerous (without JS) because there was no way to auto expand the templates
- niutech 5mo agoActually, declarative partial updates (HTML patching) have long been possible in every modern web browser without JS by using my Pure HTML Out-Of-Order Streaming (PHOOOS) technique based on Declarative Shadow DOM. You don't need another syntax with processing instructions. Demo: https://kraksped.pl/phooos/ https://kraksped.pl/phooos/