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

Re: [webcomponents] Custom Elements Spec

From: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 10:19:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABMdHiRSGuXt16kiQddyWXmSqq6tW96nULptSJbq5aFkNM5LWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Is it worth separating the issues of fallback behavior and extracting
element semantics?

It strikes me as unlikely that in practice components *can* be used if
you need to target legacy browsers, and that fallback won't mean much
unless legacy browsers are specifically targeted because proper
behavior will involve different control flow paths (hooking up the
right events, etc..).

Sorry, if I'm making a leap here or just being stupid. It seems like
if you remove the legacy UAs issue, it opens up a bunch of other
options for extracting semantics (e.g. for indexing or accessibility).

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com wrote:
>> >
>> > So what happens in browsers that don't support components? Or in
>> > search engines or other data analysis tools that are trying to extract
>> > the semantics from the page?
>>
>> Elements with custom tag-names would have EXACTLY SAME semantic (as for
>> core HTML5 semantics) meaning as a common container (SPAN or DIV) with a
>> class. No more and no less.
>
> If it's purely stylistic, then using <div> and not having semantics is
> fine. Stylistic components should just be invoked from the CSS layer.
>
> Components that are not purely stylistic, e,g, things like form controls
> or data (tables or graphical), need to have fallback semantics. Those are
> the ones that appear in the markup.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 17:20:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT