W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2015

RE: Custom Elements: is=""

From: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 21:06:09 +0000
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM2PR0501MB13738377FF2464C4A828660DDFDE0@DM2PR0501MB1373.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leithead@microsoft.com] 

> It always seemed weird to me that 'prototype' of ElementRegistrationOptions can inherit from anything (including null), and be completely disassociated from the localName provided in 'extends'.

Yes, the current spec is completely borked when it comes to classes and how it just treats { prototype } as an options object. I think there is wide agreement to fix that.

The solution that maintains the least delta from the current spec is outlined in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015JanMar/0230.html, coupled with the work at https://github.com/domenic/element-constructors (see especially the registry). You could imagine other solutions that allow author-supplied constructors (instead of just inheriting the default behavior from HTMLElement and delegating to this.createdCallback() or this[Element.create]()) but those require running such author-supplied constructors during parsing and during cloning, which has its own issues.
Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 21:06:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:56 UTC