Re: [webcomponents] Should parser extensibility be a design goal? (#113)

That seems fair. Can we try to nail down:

- Should the default parsing (in terms of places that the element can appear) for custom elements be `<div>`-esque or `<template>`-esque? What are the pros and cons of either?
- What specific types of unusual parsing are desired? E.g. @annevk proposes void elements, `<script>`-esque, and `<template>`-esque. Is that the correct set? @rniwa says that `<script>`-esque seems like unwarranted complexity when the author is likely just going to use `src` attribute instead.
  - Can we settle this with appeal to example usages in the wild? E.g. as @annevk points out it seems like Polymer has examples for `<template>`-esque. Are those better suited for composition, or inheritance? What about `<script>`-esque? Can we find any examples there?
 - When you're talking about `<template>`, there are two main changes: that it's allowed to appear anywhere, and that its contents are inert. To me the latter is fundamentally part of `<template>`, and you should only be able to get it via inheritance. @annevk does that seem right?


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/113#issuecomment-112102891