- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:51:47 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
- cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>
> I think one thing that is missing from this table/proposal is how the
> prototype chain is hooked up.
>
> For the permanent case I would like to see the user defined object on
> that chain.
>
> <script>
> function FancyButton () {}
> // registration and whatevs
> </script>
>
> <button is=FancyButton id=b>
>
> b.constructor === FanceButton
> b.__proto__ === FancyButton.prototype
> b.__proto__.__proto__ === HTMLButtonElement.prototype
That sounds fine to me.
I wouldn't want to require that authors use JS to define a binding though.
If a binding doesn't define an API, just a shadow tree and some scoped
styles, I would expect it to be purely declarative (still function when
JS is disabled) both for the is="" case and the 'binding:' case.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 21:55:29 UTC