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

To be clear, I said specifically "I am not proposing we we make this
element." I'm trying to describe a problem, not posit the solution.

There are strong objections to using <script> tag the way Dimitri
originally discussed because (1) you can't have magic 'this', and (2) it
violates CSP.

When you realize that what we originally wanted was to describe a
prototype, then the actual work to perform requires no magic 'this' or
execution of code (per se), so those restraints are baggage of <script> and
not fundamental to the problem.

Maybe there is no way to declare a prototype other than <script> but surely
you can see there is some baby in that bathwater.


On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Apr 13, 2013 8:57 PM, "Daniel Buchner" <daniel@mozilla.com> wrote:
> >
> > @Rick - if we generated a constructor that was in scope when the script
> was executed, there is no need for rebinding 'this'. I'd gladly ditch the
> rebinding in favor of sane, default, generated constructors.
>
> I think we need someone to summarize where we are at this point :)
>
> Is anyone  besides scott in favor of the
>
> 2) Invent a new element specifically for the purpose of defining prototypes
>
> For the record, i am not.
>