- From: Caridy Patiño via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:19:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
thanks @fergald for creating the issue. There are few more things from the meeting yesterday that I want to highlight to give more context on why are we proposing this thing:
* ergonomics: creating a new IDL for the `remap` attribute seems very limiting, and also suffered from some of the issues mentioned above, e.g.: users will have to learn that new syntax no matter what.
* perf: it you move the remap info into a CSS, it is probably easier to cache the remapping (speculating here). At least you don't have to worry about the remap attribute reflection and mutation.
* extensibility: in the CSS we have more room for experimentation with the rules (we have quotes, line breaks, etc).
* equivalence: ultimately, users who want to have the remap in the place where they use the element can use the `style` attribute with the remap rules on it. (e.g.: `<x-foo style="::part(inner) { @outer-name(outer) }">...</x-foo>`
Yes, there are some cons:
* you need at least one style blob to do any remapping (I don't think this is a big deal).
* decentralization since the style blob might reference things that are not longer in use by the markup (counter argument is the usage of the `style` attribute)
--
GitHub Notification of comment by caridy
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2904#issuecomment-404281303 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2018 19:19:16 UTC