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

Re: [webcomponents] How about let's go with slots?

From: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 17:45:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbmOLazZmYkFNWAssCP6veDqq1TYyeEVF32R+1nfTta5k2Qbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
>> How does it work for redistribution

We've done some investigation and think it can work.

>> and the other downsides that have been brought up?

We have to tackle these deliberately, but mostly we think there is room for
consensus.

>> You're okay with the "required to plaster content-slot='foo' all
over your page" requirement?

Me personally, this is the least palatable part of the `slot` proposal. But
if after all the discussion is over, if the consensus is that the pros
outweigh the cons, then yeah it's not blocking from my perspective. For
sure, I'd at least like a shorter attribute name than `content-slot`, but
seems like that bikeshedding can wait until later. ;)

Scott

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
> > Polymer really wants Shadow DOM natively, and we think the `slot`
> proposal
> > can work, so maybe let's avoid blocking on design of an imperative API
> > (which we still should make in the long run).
>
> How does it work for redistribution, and the other downsides that have
> been brought up?  Are you saying that those cases just aren't
> important enough to be blocking at the moment?
>
> You're okay with the "required to plaster content-slot='foo' all over
> your page" requirement?
>
> ~TJ
>
Received on Saturday, 16 May 2015 00:46:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:31 UTC