- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:45:11 -0700
- To: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
- Cc: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, John J Barton <johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@mozilla.com>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>, Dave Herman <dherman@mozilla.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
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>
This is actually pretty close to <implementation> element in XBL2
(http://dev.w3.org/2006/xbl2/#the-implementation-element). I was
really hoping to avoid inventing another element whose content is
script. But you can sort of see the |this| hack is an extraction of
<implementation>.
:DG<
Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 22:45:39 UTC