- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 10:08:30 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Tue, 1 May 2012, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> >> Custom tags vs. "is" attribute >> - "is" attribute is awkward, overly verbose >> - custom tags introduce local semantics >> - perhaps start with something as simple as reserving "x-" prefix on >> HTML tags for local semantics. > > Whether it's > > <x-colour-picker fallback="select"> > > ...or: > > <select is="colour-picker"> > > ...you have the same level of awkwardness. The advantage of the second > one, aside from being less ugly and generally terser, is that it actually > has workable fallback in legacy UAs -- the first one would only work in > UAs that supported components or at a minimum knew enough about components > to know how the fallback mechanism worked. (Also, the first one runs the > risk that authors would start forgetting to give a fallback, with its > resulting implications on accessibility, search engines, etc.) I completely agree, given these two choices. However, it's possible we have more choices that these two -- they just haven't been discovered. I am happy to see that there is a momentum in JS frameworks toward using DOM tree as a composition medium (Microsoft's WinJS, AngularJS, QuickUI, and others), and they will undoubtedly have to solve this problem. I'll be watching for cowpaths. :DG< > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 17:09:00 UTC