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

As a frequent user of custom elements and shadow dom, I can attest both to the general need and relief in seeing the development of this feature. Thank you all for being involved in making it come to life.

While I agree with @plinss that supporting non-boolean states is something that should be pushed for, I believe I could wait for a phase II (rather impatiently) if implementors believe that doing so would make implementation easier or faster. I've been following the development of the web components specification for a while, so I know that doesn't always come from technical restrictions... I would also like to add another vote against the idea of running script while selector matching, please no! This feature and conversation fall so timely in relation to a recent talk about stateful styles by David Khourshid outlining the benefits of this style of interface: https://slides.com/davidkhourshid/crafting-stateful-styles#/

What would leave me most amenable to waiting for a phase II implementation of `:state(mode=collapsed)` as a more wholistic proclamation as to the state of my elements would be assurances (by way of inclusion in the explainer) that multiple states would be supported by the current phase of the API. The explainer references `:valid` as the sort of support that we'd expect to add to our elements, and I hope that would go further as to include `:required:focus:hover:valid`, etc. Has this been considered, or rather its theoretical parallels of  `:state(required):state(focus):state(hover):state(valid)` or `:state(required focus hover valid)`? I find it to be a rather logic and important extension to the thoughts outlined in the explainer as they relate to actual user/developer intent.

Thanks in advance for taking my thoughts on this into account. I'm very much looking forward to the introduction of this specification and would be pleased to offer any further support or report from the field that would be of benefit to that coming to pass.

-- 
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-542683429