- From: Ryosuke Niwa via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 06:13:50 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> The programmatic API is not blocking anything right now, can we move discussion of that to #2414 and get back to the forwarding syntax here? I don't think we can reach a consensus on content attribute syntax without coming to a consensus on IDL attribute. I certainly wouldn't support any move to reach a consensus without also having a concrete proposal & a rough consensus on IDL attribute since these things are interdependent, and the past attempts to define one without the other usually resulted in pretty terrible outcomes. My preference here is to subclass `DOMTokenList` and overload `add` and `remove` with a variant which takes multiple arguments and/or a dictionary. That would make the whole thing work & consistent with the rest of the DOM. Perhaps the problem here is the content attribute name itself. Maybe we can come up with a name which makes the semantics of what maps to what clear. e.g. if it were `partretargeting="a b"` or `partdelegates="a b"`, or `partforwarding="a b"` (this one is a bit ambiguous), it becomes self evident that `a` refers to a part of the current tree, and `b` refers to a part inside the element on which this attribute is specified. I'm sure someone can come up with an even better name though. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rniwa Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2411#issuecomment-376409144 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2018 06:14:22 UTC