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

@domenic [writes](https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/509#issuecomment-230766006):

> You can talk about how you dislike the technical aspects of is="" as a solution, but I think it's very unfair to say that omitting is="" is better for webdevs (or even "end-webdevs", although I'm not sure what those are).

My position is that `is=""` is the preferred solution and that `options.extends` is the one that should go away. Perhaps @trusktr's position is the opposite, but I don't read it that way.

@rniwa [writes](https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/509#issuecomment-230884238):

> I don't get why people keep making claims that `is=` improves accessibility. It simply doesn't except the very simple scenario in which the entire UI of the builtin form control is preserved (e.g. just adding JS methods).

While it's hard to predict how most Web Components will be written, isn't it safe to say that a lot of them would fit precisely this "simple scenario" of default form controls with custom event handling? Isn't that what most JavaScript on web pages is today and that's what it'll be in the future as well?

As @richardkazuomiller [writes](https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/509#issuecomment-258597484):

> Attaching a shadow root to a builtin element might introduce complexity, but as a few people have said already, there are many use cases for custom elements that don't have anything to do with shadow DOM.

👍 This is precisely how we want to use custom elements; no shadow DOM at all, just the native form control with some custom event handlers. Call it naïve or simple, but it's enough and solves a whole heap of problems that not having Web Components gives us.

-- 
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-424291361