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

@prushforth we are saying two different things, but you brought up an important point.

Take the polymer [shop demo for example](https://shop.polymer-project.org/).  It uses a lot of Polymer components / custom elements.  We could put a progressively enhanced map element in the `About us` view and it will still render even if Javascript is turned off.  But with Javascript turned off the whole thing is turned off.  It's like having a progressively enhanced oven.  If the gas line is not connected, it does not help that some knobs are progressively enhanced.

Now with respect to direct component dependencies that's another important area that could be confusing for developers and customers.  You could have an `<swan-map>` element that does declare dependencies and those dependencies have transitive dependencies and when javascript is turned on the thing just blows the customers mind and they want it!  But it's also supposed to work when javascript is turned off, and the minute that happens the `<swan-map>` turns into `<uglyduckling-map>`.  So as you will see in my upcoming comment both the messaging WRT the `is` element and the developer experience can is confusing.

> JS implementation will actually be the fallback.

The thing is that when we are doing `<map is="swan-map>` we are assuming that Javascript could be turned off.  That's the whole point of it.  If javascript is definitely going to be available then we might as well do `<swan-map>`.   So if we agree that that is the smart thing to do, and go one more step further and get browser vendors to relax schema restrictions so that @tomalec can put a template element right smack in the middle of the table then we have solved this in a far more elegant way that is less confusing for everyone (Customers, project managers, developers, people that have to write this stuff up and loose a lot of their hair in the process, etc.). 

-- 
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-266505567