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

> I cannot as (at least the old browsers) will put `<my-tr> outside of <table>` and we cannot just break backward compatibility, like that.

That's true but the PE thing to do then is to display a message to the user that they need to upgrade their browser.  That's option 1.  Option 2 is to use ReactJS, EmberJS, AngularJS, heck even Dojo, or one of the 1000s of other MVC frameworks that have already solved this so that it does work across all spectrum of browsers.  

We really need to start realized that the spec is not something that is our personal toy for our personal use case.  Some of the smartest developers looking at this are all here and it's obvious that even with this microcosm there is already a lot of confusion so how is that going to translate to a great developer experience?

> The new-comer will have to read (minified) JS source to figure about whether <my-element> behaves more-or-less like `<tr>, <tbody> or <caption>`.

Come on man!  You can look at the rendering.  If you are putting `<my-tr>` inside a table then that's probably your element or an element that you gave to your developer to put inside a table element.  If a html author sees it inside a table element then they are probably smart enough to figure out that it belongs inside the table element.  Lastly if someone is looking for custom elements that work in the context of the native `<table>` element then they are probably going to search through the Polymer catalog, NPMJS, or some other catalog where you have tagged that element as working with `<table>` elements.  If you are assign work that involves custom elements then assign it to someone who knows how to work with custom elements.

> Would trigger a lot of unnecessary DOM mutations, re-paints, FOUC, etc.

That's true but again this is the Higgs Boson fall back.  It's only being done because your requirement is to support Higgs Boson browsers instead of just telling the user to upgrade their browser or using one of the 1000s other solutions that will work better.

> So we are loosing composability, which is in my opinion key feature of CE and HTML in general.

We are loosing it but only because there is a schema restriction that browser vendors had to implement around.

> I also feel the pain explaining the change from V0 to V1 instead just advertising a new feature/spec. But, I feel there is a significant group of developers who already rely on is since V0, so we are already here.

They can still rely on it.  No one is forcing anyone to upgrade.  And the only reason I care is that by catering to a few, we will loose the many.




-- 
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-266527340