W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Custom elements ES6/ES5 syntax compromise, was: document.register and ES6

From: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:40:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHbmOLZDsDnnAca1L=pB6pnwHxNk_vufHV1fU5OxiOF5ysc_Kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
Cc: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
In all constructions the *actual* calling of HTMLButtonElement is done by
the browser.

All the user has to do is *not* call it, and only call super constructors
if they are custom.

For that reason, I don't see why this is an issue.


On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com> wrote:

> It seems to me (please correct me if this is inaccurate) that you can't *
> really* polyfill ES6 extension of existing element constructor
> inheritance, because afaik, you cannot call the existing native
> constructors of elements - it throws. So if you can only do a jankified 1/2
> fill, why not just provide an optional route that has no legacy issues for
> people who want to use it?
>
> I believe even Scott's polyfill doesn't do anything to enable
> HTMLButtonElement.call(this);
>
> Hopefully I'm in the ballpark here, but if what I said is wrong or not an
> issue, what *is* the reasoning behind it?
>
> Daniel J. Buchner
> Product Manager, Developer Ecosystem
> Mozilla Corporation
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
>
>> MyButton = document.register(‘x-button’, {
>>   prototype: MyButton.prototype,
>>   lifecycle: {
>>      created: MyButton
>>   }
>> });
>>
>> What's the benefit of allowing this syntax? I don't immediately see why
>> you couldn't just do it the other way.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, this post does not really talk about syntax. It comes after a
>>>> discussion how we could use ES6 class syntax.
>>>>
>>>> The ES6 classes have the same semantics as provided in this thread
>>>> using ES5.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MyButton = document.register(‘x-button’, {
>>>>>>   prototype: MyButton.prototype,
>>>>>>   lifecycle: {
>>>>>>      created: MyButton
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>> });
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this actually mean that the second argument has a property called
>>>>> "prototype" that itself has a special meaning?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is just a dictionary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the re-assignment MyButton intentional? I see the original
>>>>> "MyButton" reference as the value of the created property, but then
>>>>> document.register's return value is assigned to the same identifier? Maybe
>>>>> this was a typo?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> document.register(‘x-button’, {
>>>>>>  constructor: MyButton,
>>>>>>  ...
>>>>>> });
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Same question as above, but re: "constructor"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Same answer here.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not happy with these names but I can't think of anything better.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fair enough, I trust your judgement here. Thanks for the follow
>>> up—always appreciated.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> erik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 22:40:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT