RE: [webcomponents] How about let's go with slots? from Domenic Denicola on 2015-05-18 (public-webapps@w3.org from April to June 2015)

From: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 23:25:46 +0000
To: Justin Fagnani <justinfagnani@google.com>
CC: Daniel Freedman <dfreedm@google.com>, 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>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0501MB1369A899D5FBE95614B054A9DFC40@CY1PR0501MB1369.namprd05.prod.outlook.>

Agreed. Keeping it simple is best. That is why I urged for <summary> instead of <div content-slot="summary">.

From: Justin Fagnani [mailto:justinfagnani@google.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 19:21
To: Domenic Denicola
Cc: Daniel Freedman; Dimitri Glazkov; Scott Miles; Ryosuke Niwa; Edward O'Connor; Anne van Kesteren; Travis Leithead; Maciej Stachowiak; Arron Eicholz; Alex Russell; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [webcomponents] How about let's go with slots?

Like we pointed out in the previous thread, adding enough special cases to slots leads to select.

At this point we're much more interested in agreeing on something rather than nothing.

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me<mailto:d@domenic.me>> wrote:
I was thinking opposed. I don’t see any reason to invent two ways to do the same thing.

If we do support content-slot then I think we should allow <details><div content-slot="summary">...</div>...</details> and a few others.

Received on Monday, 18 May 2015 23:26:19 UTC