It would tie in an additional feature with potential future incompatibilities, and it moves insecurities in templates to the client runtime where they’re more dangerous than compile/interpret time.
Eg some template feature creates a security issue and has to be disabled, which invalidates all the old HTML that used it.
There’s also just not a super great reason to do it. It’s not all that different from pre-templating like Hugo or doing it server-side like Django. You get to offload some compute, but HTML templating isn’t usually the bottleneck.
It's a markup language for documents. If you enable templating devs are then going to ask for more. Eventually it will end up turing complete. Such is the development arc of a lot of languages.
It's almost a meta-slippery-slope fallacy, in that the specific slope is not specified; only the existence of the slope and its slipperiness is asserted.
SSIs are not widely supported any more, and were never a part of the HTML standard
(but yes- I used these a lot like 25 years ago)
From what I can tell, apache mod_include and nginx SSI are still included by default?
Yes, but then you need php
Why is there no direct support for templating in HTML itself?
It would tie in an additional feature with potential future incompatibilities, and it moves insecurities in templates to the client runtime where they’re more dangerous than compile/interpret time.
Eg some template feature creates a security issue and has to be disabled, which invalidates all the old HTML that used it.
There’s also just not a super great reason to do it. It’s not all that different from pre-templating like Hugo or doing it server-side like Django. You get to offload some compute, but HTML templating isn’t usually the bottleneck.
It's a markup language for documents. If you enable templating devs are then going to ask for more. Eventually it will end up turing complete. Such is the development arc of a lot of languages.
> If you enable templating devs are then going to ask for more
This might be the worst argument for anything I've read this week, there's got to be a name for this logical fallacy
A "slippery slope" fallacy might be what you're thinking of.
It's almost a meta-slippery-slope fallacy, in that the specific slope is not specified; only the existence of the slope and its slipperiness is asserted.