W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:21:04 +0000 (UTC)
To: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
cc: Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1110110020390.20981@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>
> Splitting this up into two different things is great.
> 
> Allowing attaching an alternative shadow tree through CSS but disabling 
> any JS to be run seems like the right thing to do.

You wouldn't want to disable any JS. Just the API defining aspects.


> I'm also in favor of the "is" attribute. Even though I think that 
> <x-foo> is more readable than <div is="foo"> it is hard to argue about 
> the issues regarding parsing and fallback behavior. The "is" attribute 
> also provides a better behavior for common cases such as when you want 
> to extend <select> and <button>.

Agreed.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 00:24:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:48 GMT