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

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:

> This works for me too.
>
> And I like the proposed new bikeshed-ed names Anne suggests below.
>

SG. Started a proposal stub here:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/blob/gh-pages/proposals/Slots-Proposal.md

:DG<


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@annevk.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:10 PM
> To: Dimitri Glazkov
> Cc: Scott Miles; Ryosuke Niwa; Edward O'Connor; Travis Leithead; Maciej
> Stachowiak; Arron Eicholz; public-webapps
> Subject: Re: [webcomponents] How about let's go with slots?
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
> wrote:
> > Given that all vendors agreed that "C" can wait until v2, we could
> > just focus on concretizing the "slots" proposal and then put a lid on
> > Shadow DOM v1.
> >
> > What do you think, folks?
>
> This probably works for Mozilla. It would be good to see the proposed
> processing model and its implications for an eventual imperative API.
> It's somewhat troubling we don't agree on synchronous vs
> when-layout-or-event-dispatch-happens.
>
> Also, I suggest we bikeshed the markup in the direction of
> slot=some-slot-name and <slot name=some-slot-name> rather than
> content-slot=some-slot-name and <content slot=some-slot-name>.
>
>
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
>