- From: Nick Dugger <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 10:02:47 -0800
- To: w3c/webcomponents <webcomponents@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/webcomponents/issues/723/355764146@github.com>
Upon further thinking, there's 2 things that might make or break this idea. ### 1. It does not make sense if you're writing your custom elements in HTML I can see what you're saying about how custom elements should not be gratuitously different from built-in elements. If you saw that HTML, you would expect it to behave the way that it currently does. ### 2. It really makes sense if you're creating components and their children all in JS >From a [react-like](https://github.com/ndugger/quark) point of view, a component is just a set of predefined behaviour for a set of elements. The actual component has no affect on the box-model--only its contents do. While I agree that custom elements should behave like any other elements, my proposal is to affect custom elements that have a `shadowRoot`. Shadow DOM already behaves differently enough from the regular DOM, with encapsulated styles, among other things, and I think that the expectation that the contents of the `shadowRoot` to define the makeup of the element is enough to justify this change. --- It's a double edged sword, in my opinion. Do you still manually write your HTML, or are you using a JS library that uses some sort of component architecture to define the makeup of your DOM? Maybe you don't see a huge difference, but I do. -- 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/723#issuecomment-355764146
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2018 18:03:12 UTC