Re: [w3c/webcomponents] The is="" attribute is confusing? Maybe we should encourage only ES6 class-based extension. (#509)

> @oleersoy If you think this is a waste of time, you don't have to participate. If you don't find this feature useful, you don't have to use it.

Sigh - Dude - At least just quote what I said and why I said it and try to pick it apart to some degree.  I keep telling you that it's not about me and you and you keep telling me it's about us.  It's groundhog day on stereoids.

> We're trying to come to an agreement about whether or not inheritance is a good idea for the web and how to move forward one way or another.

This is the request for [feedback](https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/getting-started/primers/customelements#upgrades):

> Note: Some browsers have expressed distaste for implementing the is="" syntax. This is unfortunate for accessibility and progressive enhancement. If you think extending native HTML elements is useful, voice your thoughts on Github.


> If you want to provide an alternative to is or why you think inheritance is a bad idea, you're welcome to do that

Thanks that's very nice of you to offer that :).  Do you maybe have a few scripted comments for me that you would like me to add? 

> but please do not diminish other people's hard work.

It's a lot of hard work and 99% of it is absolutely brilliant.  Just remove the `is` part of the spec and it's perfect.  And saying that is not diminishing everyone's hard work.  All the brilliant work that has been put into this will be much more appreciated my all if you just dump the `is` part of the spec.

> I think the web's future will be brighter with the semantics of a class hierarchy.

I totally agree.  I think you should subclass `button` to create a `FancyButton`.  I only disagree with the usage of `is`.  In other words I think it should always be `<fancy-button`> and never `<button is="FancyButton">`

As a matter of fact there were a few comments also saying that subclassing is a bad idea due to the  Liskov substitution principle, which I think does a disservice to this discussion because it's too abstract a notion.  If there ever was a great case for inheritance this has to be it.

I'm making a very simple argument.  My HP laptop has a DVD drive in it right now.  I never use.  I'm sure some people use it once in a while, but the need for it is rapidly disappearing.  The `is` part of the spec is the spec's DVD drive.

Keep the subclassing.  I love the sub classing.  The sub classing is brilliant.  Just get rid of stuff like `<button is="FancyButton">` because that does not add any value.  Being able to extend button and use a `<fancy-button>` does.

>  As @WebReflection said, many people here have devoted a lot of time to this. The people working on this feature have invited developers to join the discussion but they have no obligation to do so and could just as easily decide to ignore us if we don't talk to each other in a civil and productive manner.

OK - Everyone take a 10 minute timeout.  No Ipad!

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/509#issuecomment-259016133