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

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

From: Daniel Freedman <dfreedm@google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 15:55:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAUAVAiaV-cJER0e4y-JYQED-GBJAb=dVH4YLPhW0MYToiJx7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
I assume you mean to have tag names in addition to content-slot, and not as
opposed to content-slot?

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> wrote:

> From: Dimitri Glazkov [mailto:dglazkov@google.com]
>
> > What do you think, folks?
>
> Was there a writeup that explained how slots did not have the same
> performance/timing problems as select=""? I remember Alex and I were pretty
> convinced they did at the F2F, but I think you became convinced they did
> not ... did anyone capture that?
>
> My only other contribution is that I sincerely hope we can use tag names
> instead of the content-slot attribute, i.e. <dropdown> instead of <div
> content-slot="dropdown">. Although slots cannot fully emulate native
> elements in this manner (e.g. <select>/<optgroup>/<option>), they would at
> least get syntactically closer, and would in some cases match up (e.g.
> <details>/<summary>). I think it would be a shame to start proliferating
> markup in the <div content-slot="dropdown"> vein if we eventually want to
> get to a place where shadow DOM can be used to emulate native elements,
> which do not use this pattern.
>
Received on Monday, 18 May 2015 22:56:18 UTC

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