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

I'm late to the party here but read the entire thread. If the main concern is how a CE is to "fallback" to native elements (e.g., no JS), remember that by simply including a CE in his/her markup, a developer is also asserting that he/she expects JS to be running on the page (since the definition of the CE must be made via JS), and with this assertion the element's prototype is accessible via JS. When JS is not running in a client, we already have a way to fallback with `<noscript>` (as mentioned early on: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/509#issuecomment-222798093).

Also, there may be cases where an _automatic_ "fallback" to a native element is not wanted. I can see that a fallback to `<button>` may be acceptable alternative to `<fancy-button>` (if the enhancements were mostly UI related). However, what about the case where I have `<special-form>` which _must_ to do some type of special validation and then submit via XHR or fetch? A standard submission via a GET request would not be acceptable, so an _automatic_ fallback to `<form>` would not work. In this case an explicit `<noscript>` would be needed presenting an alternative UI.




-- 
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-300199274