Re: [webcomponents]: Platonic form of custom elements declarative syntax

Here are a few (compelling?) answers/arguments:

   1. Style elements had never done this before, yet it rocks socks: <style
   2. It would be new for script elements, but hardly new for other
   elements. There are plenty of elements that have various behaviors or
   visual representations only when placed inside specific elements. Given
   this is already an advanced web API, I'm not sure a little upfront learning
   is a huge concern. We could even allow for this, given the paradigm is
   already established: <script scoped>  *// could scope 'this' ref to the
   3. Are you referring to <template> attachment here? If so, I agree, thus
   the proposal I submitted allows for both ( If you want your template
   automatically associated with your <element>, put it inside, if not, you
   can specify which <template> a custom element should use by reference to
   its ID.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:00 PM, John J Barton

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <>wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Rick Waldron <>
>> wrote:
>> > Everyone's answer to this should be "no"; changing the expected value
>> of the
>> > top level "this", in some magical way, simply won't work.
>> Can you explain why you feel this way?
> 1) Because <script> has never done this before, so it better be compelling.
> 2) Because causing |this| to change by moving the <script> tag in the HTML
> or adding a layer of elements etc seems likely to cause hard to understand
> bugs.
> 3) Forcing the binding based on position is inflexible.
> To be sure this is implicit-declarative vs explicit-imperative bias, not
> evidence.
> Oh, sorry you were asking Rick.
>  jjb

Received on Thursday, 11 April 2013 03:20:27 UTC