- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:00:06 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18669 --- Comment #42 from brian kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #40) > (In reply to comment #36) > > Here's an alternative proposal that dglazkov and I came up with over lunch. > > > > Provide two alternatives for authors to pick from: > > > > 1. Extending an existing element, using the declaration syntax: > > <element extends="ul" name="mylib-speciallist"> > > ...and the use syntax: > > <ul is="mylib-speciallist">...</ul> > > Changing the is="" attribute doesn't do anything (and we provide an API to > > expose the element's original 'is' value somehow). This is suboptimal (as > > noted earlier) but it avoids even less pleasant changes to the HTML parser > > and differences between HTML and XML syntax. > > > > 2. Creating new elements that inherit straight from CustomElement (which > > inherits from Element, like HTMLElement, and has things like .style, > > focus(), and tabindex=""), using the declaration syntax: > > <element name="mylib-myelement"> > > ...and the use syntax: > > <mylib-myelement> > > > > (Both types would also be able to extend other components; whether it's the > > kind of component that extends an existing element type or creates a new > > element depends on the which is at the root of the hierarchy.) > > Since I cannot appear to edit my last question, I want to clarrify: the element defined in #1 above With <element extends="ul" name="mylib-speciallist"> Is the proposal that we actually prohibit or merely discourage people from just using: <mylib-speciallist> Clearly you would loose a band of information in some cases early on as hixie explained, but ... what happens if you do this? Does it throw or does it work or what? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 12:00:12 UTC