- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:52:26 -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>
Good brainstorm! So far I see these ideas: 1) The <element> expects the constructor (prototype?) to be already defined somewhere earlier (Rick's strawman). Pros: * Because of the way parser works, nesting <script> in <element> will Just Work (tm) * Custom element initialization can be anywhere, not tied to the <element> Cons: * Pollutes global namespace * Still need to figure out how to deal with generated constructors 2) Invent a new element specifically for the purpose of defining prototypes. Pros: * No legacy/misunderstanding concerns * Precise purpose, no ambiguity Cons: * Yet another element that runs script. WebAppsSec people (and the web devs) will flog us, roll in chicken feathers and parade us around the village :DG<
Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 22:52:54 UTC