- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:24:22 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > 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. Can you help me understand what the issues with fallback are? Perhaps we could look at them one by one and see whether a solution lies somewhere in their midst? > > 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 18:24:55 UTC