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

> Would you mind re‐explaining to me what do you have a problem with? I seem to have lost it in all the discussion…

Hehe.  OK.  Basically we have three core arguments for `is` so far.  And I'm going to make this as dead simple as I possibly can.

Argument 1: NO SHOWER (Javascript)

We go in the shower and turn the progressively enhanced shower knob and no water comes out.  But we still feel good because at least we can see the shower knob.

Argument 2: NO WATER (Network)

We go in the shower, turn the progressively enhanced shower knob, and one drop of water comes out.  We have a special cloth that is designed for living on Mars that we catch the drop with and with that drop and some special soap we can actually clean up a little bit.  Don't use normal soap though because it will completely negate the function of the special cloth.

Argument 3: AIR CONDITIONING WAY TOO COLD (Schema too Strict)

We are sitting in the house and it's freezing.  Fifty degrees.  So we go and grab our best North Face gear and some heavy blankets and sit down to watch Netflix.

The air conditioning is not our enemy.  We just turn it up to 70.  Maybe there are times when only one drop of water comes out of the shower, but how many people actually have that problem and if that's the case could you borrow your neighbors shower?

> Honestly, I’m starting to agree with @rniwa and Apple more and more that it might be better to simply not allow extending built‐in elements; at least not in the same way we extend custom elements.

It might be a genius point for now.  Instead of extending built ins, replicate the features of the built ins in external classes, extend those classes to get the features needed, and then consolidate that with Web IDL, and finally we will have a clean fit.

-- 
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-266839831