- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:39:03 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18669 --- Comment #46 from Daniel Buchner <danieljb2@gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #45) > Summarizing preliminary developer ergonomics analysis of the proposal in > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18669#c36: > > * Two distinct syntaxes for custom elements, while isn’t anything new for > HTML, is a usability problem. Opinions on the severity of this problem vary. > > * The proposal has a strong “either-or” force of slotting libraries into > either only providing things that extend existing HTML elements or only > providing a set of custom tags. > > * The “is” syntax is awkward (a thing that’s like a tag name but is an > attribute that you can’t change) and more verbose than the custom tag. "Opinions on the severity of this problem vary" - this is a crucial distinction, because depending on our assumption set and *valid* use-cases, we could be forking the API for a problem that may never materialize or would fade away organically at a fairly rapid pace. The existence of a use-case is merely an interesting starting point for analysis and exploration - whether or not it affects decisions or outcomes should be based on the expected rate of occurrence vs the severity of effect. Do you pass a law mandating all pedestrians must wear helmets simply because tripping is a *possible* use-case? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 22:39:05 UTC