On Friday, April 12, 2013, Scott Miles wrote:
> I think those things are nice but not necessary.
>
> In particular, there was a long discussion at one point about how the
> <template> is inert but a <script> tag has to 'do things'. I found it
> useful to realize that at the basic level the script only 'does stuff'
> because it's the only way to express the otherwise inert prototype.
>
This is exactly what my proposed semantics are based on. (See above)
Rick
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>wrote:
>
> @Scott - interesting, but there are valid reasons for having access to the
> global scope/document:
>
> - Components that benefit from top-level delegation
> - Components that need to analyze their destination environment before
> codifying their definition
>
> Know what I mean?
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
>
> I realize this doesn't fit any existing conceptual model (that I know of)
> but I think it's worth pointing out that all we really want to do is define
> a prototype for the element (as opposed to running arbitrary script).
>
> Invented pseudo-code (not a proposal, just trying to identify a mental
> model):
>
> <element name="x-foo" extends="<something>">
> <!-- prototype for markup -->
> <template>
> <template>
> <!-- prototype for instances -->
> <prototype>
> readyCallback: function() {
> },
> someApi: function() {
> },
> someProperty: null
> </prototype>
> </element>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Daniel, what happens in this case?
>
> <element name="x-foo">
> <script>
> class XFoo extends SVGElement {
> }
> </script>
> </element>
>
> This points out 2 short comings with your proposal.
>
> 1. This would just replace the global constructor. That might be OK, and
> we can detect this override to register the class as needed.
> 2. Prefixing with HTML seems like an anti pattern.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>wrote:
>
> @John - what about what I just sent through? It hops over the magical
> rebinding issue (or so I think), your thoughts?
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 2:06 PM, John J Barton <
> johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com> wrote:
>
>
> Some suggestions:
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>wrote:
>
> ... or "How the heck do we initialize custom elements in declarative
> syntax?"
>
> There were good questions raised about the nature of <script> element
> in the "platonic form" thread. Consider this syntax:
>
> <element name="foo-bar">
>
>
> <element constructor="FooBar">
>
>
> <script> ...</script>
> <template> ... </template>
> </element>
>
> The way <element> should work is like this:
> a) when </element> is seen
> b) generate a constructor for this element
>
>
> b) call the nominated ctor, new FooBar(elt).
>
> I'm unclear on the practical advantages the instance
>
>