Re: [w3c/webcomponents] The is="" attribute is confusing? Maybe we should encourage only ES6 class-based extension. (#509)

@trusktr 

> For example, in <some-element is="unrelated-element"> ..
> For example, this should be possible: <video is="awesome-button"> where when

I don't think the scope of this specification is to fix possible bad architectures or UX.

You can still `class BetterDate extends Boolean {}` in JS but that doesn't mean that the core should reject anything non-sense like a class extending a native behavior in a pointless way.

Like I've said, we have already the pencil, which is the `is=""` attribute, you want magic that would require much more effort from vendors and specs authors, which is the costly pen, IMO.

Yes, in an ideal world the runtime would understand all the things but that's not fast moving forward approach.

It is a possible V2 but right now we need to finalize at least V1 across browsers.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/509#issuecomment-266099093