The article asks about includes but also about imports ("HTML cannot import HTML ") which this is very directly.
This feature was billed as #includes for the web [1]. No, it acts nothing like an #include. TBH I don't see why ES modules are a "replacement" here.
Personally I would like to see something like these imports come back, as a way to reuse HTML structure across pages, BUT purely declaratively (no JS needed).
#includes where partially formed HTML (ie, header.html has a <body> open tag and footer.html has the closing tag) isn't very DOM compatible.
alt Hacker News
The article asks about includes but also about imports ("HTML cannot import HTML ") which this is very directly.
This feature was billed as #includes for the web [1]. No, it acts nothing like an #include. TBH I don't see why ES modules are a "replacement" here.
Personally I would like to see something like these imports come back, as a way to reuse HTML structure across pages, BUT purely declaratively (no JS needed).
#includes where partially formed HTML (ie, header.html has a <body> open tag and footer.html has the closing tag) isn't very DOM compatible.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20181121181125/https://www.html5...