Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

I don't think defining a slot based on an attribute value is something we'd like to support.

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Justin Fagnani <justinfagnani@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Another technique I've seen used is compound selectors, which could be used to migrate from one selector to another while preserving backwards compatibility, or to provide some nice default distributions that are also accessible via a class or attribute (ie, select="header, .header").
> 
> Could slots have multiple names to support something like this?
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Justin Fagnani <justinfagnani@google.com <mailto:justinfagnani@google.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com <mailto:rniwa@apple.com>> wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Justin Fagnani <justinfagnani@google.com <mailto:justinfagnani@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I do want the ability to redirect distributed nodes into a holes in the base template, so that part is welcome to me. However, my first reaction to the slot idea is that forcing users to add the content-slot attribute on children significantly impairs the DOM API surface area of custom elements.
> >
> > For the single-level distribution case, how is this different from <content select="[content-slot=name]"> except that content select can distribute based on features of the children that might already exist, like tag names or an attribute?
> 
> At the conceptual level, they're equivalent.  However, we didn't find the extra flexibility of using CSS selectors compelling as we mentioned in our proposal [1].
> 
> I personally would like to see more power, especially positional selectors. Some components would be better off selecting their first child, rather than requiring a class.
> 
> [1] See points 3 and 4 in https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Proposal-for-changes-to-manage-Shadow-DOM-content-distribution#some-issues-with-the-current-shadow-dom-spec <https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Proposal-for-changes-to-manage-Shadow-DOM-content-distribution#some-issues-with-the-current-shadow-dom-spec>
> 
> Point 4 is interesting, because unless I'm missing something (which could be!) it's incorrect. You can create selectors with :not() that exclude the content selectors that come after in document order. I would rewrite the example as:
> 
> <template>
>   <content select=".header"></content>
>   <content select=":not(.footer)"></content>
>   <content select=".footer"></content>
> </template>
> Cheers,
>   Justin
>  
> 
> 
> - R. Niwa
> 
> 
>