W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Custom Tags and Local Semantics

From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:37:12 +0400
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>,Eric A. Meyer <eric@meyerweb.com>
Message-Id: <6521335217032@web1d.yandex.ru>
FWIW: my proposal (already successfully rejected) for custom elements (real custom elements with really arbitrary tag names allowed) in W3 bug tracker from 2011-09-03:

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14011

BTW, it seems local semantics (what my proposal is about and what you are probably talking about) and "element customization" in its current form are completely different things, and the latter has nothing to do with solving the former.


23.04.2012, 22:55, "Dimitri Glazkov" <dglazkov@chromium.org>:
> Eric Meyer (cc'd) posted an intriguing article about custom tags and
> local semantics:
>
> http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2012/04/10/element-customization/
>
> I must say, even though the current direction we take with Web
> Components does not involve custom tags, I still find the current,
> "is" attribute-based solution awkward. This keeps me wondering about
> the tradeoffs of custom tags and local semantics. In terms of
> elegance, nothing comes close to specifying an identify of a DOM
> element than the localName of the corresponding tag in markup. I know
> there are strong opinions around keeping local semantics out of the
> tag names. While I respect the owners of these opinions, I also want
> to build something _good_ with the Web Components effort.
>
> Given that pretty much every time I explain how "is" attribute works
> results in raised eyebrows and quizzical looks, I feel we need to
> revisit the notion of using custom tags for custom elements in Web
> Components.
>
> Who would be interested in a discussion around this at the WebApps F2F
> next week? I would like to keep this discussion isolated from other
> Web Components-related topics, mostly to limit effects of the giant
> rabbit hole that is debating language semantics.
>
> :DG<
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 21:37:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:51 GMT