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

> relies heavily on JS regardless the usage of the is attribute.

So what is the minimum amount of that JS that you would like the broadcasting example to contain in order to make it work well with the `is`attribute?

> So, if your question is if you should use a polyfill or not

Where in the simple broadcasting example I provided did I ask that?

> This is a good old example from V0 era that shows just one of the huge amount of benefits of the is attribute. It's a cross map and it works down to IE8 and Android 2 or iOS 5 (and BB7, webOS, etc)

What's the benefit?  Specifically what is the `is` attribute doing that if it were not present you could not do?
  
It's already a custom element `x-map` - so it has to be upgraded in order to work ... so how is the `is` attribute even relevant?  It's supposed to be used on elements like non custom elements like  `<button>`, etc. right?)


> Last, but not least, I've used Custom Elements for years now and never together with ShadowDOM due greediness of the old polyfill with WeakMaps that were breaking all over.
That doesn't meen ShadowDOM is bad or anything, it's actually pretty amazing, but it's absolutely complementary with Custom Elements, not mandatory at all.

I looked at your `x-map` repository and it's obvious that you are a very talented developer, so I'm really hoping that you can come up with something that overcomes our doubts about the value of the `is` attribute.  If you can rearchitect the simple broadcasting example I provided to somehow work well and provide value using the `is` element according to some of the criteria I have outlined above that would be really great.






-- 
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-258874122