Re: [webcomponents]: Of weird script elements and Benadryl

Although I agree that the imperative system should be conformal with ES6
class syntax (to the degree possible), I'm not convinced that this syntax
is virtuous for declarative setups.


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>wrote:
>
>> @Rick - when you say "see above", to what are you referring? IMO we
>> arrive at our intended outcome without introducing <script> scoping or
>> attribute issues, and at the same time reducing boilerplate, with the
>> following:
>>
>>
>> <element tagname="x-foo" inherits="SVGElement">
>>   <template>...</template>
>>   <script>
>>       XFooElement.prototype.bar = function(){...}
>>       XFooElement.prototype.readyCallback = function(){...}
>>   </script></element>
>> </element>
>>
>>  Where am I going wrong here?
>>
>
> DRY. Remember that we want to end up with ES6 class syntax so having to
> specify inherits as an attribute and extends in the class syntax does not
> seem good.
>
> --
> erik
>
>
>