Re: [w3c/webcomponents] accessibility considerations: states and behaviors (#567)

@WebReflection

Well, I can’t say I have a lot of experience with it, but I can’t see `is` being much more useful than the inherited `accessibility` property I described above. It seems to do a very similar thing, yet, it is much more regular, or as I think you’d put it, “graceful” than `is` is.

I think I understand your point of view, but I think it’s flawed. It’s not simply because people like and use a feature that it is the best option. Nor it’s because it’s convenient. We have to think language‐design‐wise. How regular/scalable is that feature? How will having that feature positively/negatively impact the language in the future? I can have a very convenient feature that people will use that is not scalable at all.

----------

@domenic

> The global scope is a string-indexed registry, and that's precisely why it's an antipattern to use global variables.

Are you saying I should use `myLibrary.fun` instead of just `fun`? How is that different from `myLibrary_fun`? Ultimately, functions *are* string‐indexed in the top‐level. What if another library with the same name as mine decides to use the same “`myLibrary`” object to store its stuff? How is doing `myLibrary.fun` different from doing `my_library-my_behavior`?

-- 
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/567#issuecomment-247125101