W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 22:21:15 +0000 (UTC)
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
Cc: Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@chromium.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1109282218020.29849@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> 
> I think new elements are completely fine as long as they are inheriting 
> directly from HTMLElement. It's when we start dealing with sub-typing 
> HTMLTableElement and such is when they get into trouble.

New elements are not fine, for reasons that have been discussed in detail 
on this thread. You can't just dismiss those problems, they still exist.


> I am not going to recap what Boris already said in regard to transitive 
> APIs. It's a Fundamentally Bad Thing, and all existing instances already 
> in the platform are known/recognized mistakes.

There are use cases for which it is not only not a bad thing, but a 
fundamental requirement.


> There's the idea of "becomes" attribute that uses a somewhat similar 
> approach (http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Progressive_Enhancement).

Except for the part where you change the element name, that seems ok for 
the use cases that involve augmenting the logic and semantics of HTML 
(e.g. creating a new widget).

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 22:24:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT