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

It's possible I missed some key bit, but it seems like (1) separates the
parts of an <element> which IMO is bad for business. I want an 'element
taco', with everything in the tortilla (guess I need to have lunch).

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>wrote:

> 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<
>