Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] [WebComponents] Custom state pseudo class (#428)

Few is not zero, there's already an existence proof of the need for more than binary states. As people develop more custom elements it's not a stretch to imagine more uses.

The entire point of custom elements is to do things that HTML can't, so why hamstring custom elements to the least of HTML element's capabilities? The goal here is to be able to *extend* HTML, right? 

There's also no point in replicating classes by another name. We already have the ability to set custom classes.

And why would we want two different APIs for setting custom states?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/428#issuecomment-540930402