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

Feedback from stakeholders - developers, toolmakers, end users, etc - is valuable. I'm grateful that people have provided it in a constructive and polite manner, because attacking individuals isn't helpful.

There doesn't seem to be **new** information here. There are people who think `is=` is a bad idea, and people who think it is worthwhile. I think we should close the discussion, and let the W3C Process operate.

@rniwa isn't unique in opposing `is=`. He is a thoughtful intelligent person who disagrees with the apparent majority of the 10 participants in this discussion.

Apple is not unique as an organisation in opposing the attribute.

At the same time, there are many who think it is a good idea. Personally I agree with @WebReflection that it is of limited, but real value and we are better off having it than not. As chair, that doesn't mean I can impose it.

The attribute is in there for now, with supporters and detractors. Given the obvious lack of consensus to either keep or remove it, the W3C Process includes testing whether there is a likelihood of interoperable implementation which will probably boil down to looking at actual implementation. Nobody is **obliged** to implement, we will look at what the market **does**.

Apple (and others who share their dislike for `is=`) know how to suggest that something is removed from a specification on technical grounds, and have said clearly before that they don't intend to support this. Others have said they do.

The Web doesn't develop in lock step because it isn't imposed by a single actor, and overall that seems to be a strength. It is quite reasonable in a market for some players to decide not to implement something. It is unfortunate that this produces inconsistency at the bleeding edge, but it also gives us great power to let innovations come from anywhere instead of only market-dominating players being able to do it for us.

Our process enables this deliberately, for reasons beyond the above. One of them is to make sure our work is not illegal anti-competitive industry collusion. That's important to a lot of companies who are important in this area. Anyone who wants to go further down that topic, which is beyond the scope of the Working Group, can buy me a beer and lecture me or let me lecture them. But please, not here.

---
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-233589604