- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:43:25 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28547 --- Comment #3 from Martin Naumann <mr.avgp@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Ryosuke Niwa from comment #2) > The right fallback mechanism for web components is to use compostion as done > in video, embed, object, and numerous other HTML elements. > > e.g. > <code-editor><textarea></textarea></code-editor> Good point and definitely worth considering in this scenario, but it puts additional effort on the author using the component as they would have to always supply this nested element while the is-mechanism works without an additional level of content. At least that's what I feel when seeing this example. Video, Embed, Object and Canvas provide alternative content in case one type of content isn't available. The code-editor on the other hand enhances a feature that is a part of the platform, the textarea. I as an author prefer the extension mechanism over the composition. Plus I am not entirely sure how that works with the accessibility affordances I would have on a browser that does support the component. would I still have to deal with ARIA and all of the things I'm getting "for free" with the extension? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:43:27 UTC