Here are a few (compelling?) answers/arguments:
1. Style elements had never done this before, yet it rocks socks: <style
scoped>
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
parentNode*
3. Are you referring to <template> attachment here? If so, I agree, thus
the proposal I submitted allows for both (
https://gist.github.com/csuwldcat/5360471). 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
<johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
>> 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
>