- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:19:28 -0400
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
On 9/28/11 2:08 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > So, we need a way to express in markup that a particular element is to > be created with a particular behavior. Yes. > Since the tagName is the only > identifying property of a DOM element that can't be changed, this > brings us to... custom tag names. Or a declarative map from tagnames to behavior that you put in your <head>. The benefit of the latter over custom tag names is that it degrades much better in both semantic and presentational terms when the component is not available (whether due to lack of UA support or due to it having gone 404). The drawback is when you only want to apply a component to _some_ of the nodes with that tag name in your DOM. I'm not sure yet that I see a way to do the latter without custom tag names, but the fallback story for them is just _terrible_.... Going forward we can require a declarative map from custom tagnames to built-in tagnames to get fallback if the component fails to load or something, but that won't help UAs that don't support all the new stuff and that will hinder deployment by sites. We could also consider ideas like a "component" attribute that cannot be removed and cannot be set outside the parser or something... But that has its own issues. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 18:19:55 UTC