- From: Alice Boxhall <aboxhall@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 14:16:48 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: LĂ©onie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMQHGLx0tfTv1U_Z8Cxuh=_p35MydHm1dQeXUoyfuPnKe1TA6g@mail.gmail.com>
Did anyone have any further thoughts on this? My concerns haven't changed. On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Alice Boxhall <aboxhall@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> > wrote: > >> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Alice Boxhall <aboxhall@google.com> >> wrote: >> > I definitely acknowledge is= may not be the ideal solution to the latter >> > problem - it definitely has some holes in it, especially when you start >> > adding author shadow roots to things - but I think it does have >> potential. >> > I'd really like to be convinced that we either have a reasonable >> alternative >> > solution, or that it's not worth worrying about. >> >> I think it is worth worrying about, but I don't think it's worth >> holding up a minimal v1 of Custom Elements for. The way to get >> agreement among all parties is to do less. And then take baby steps >> from. >> > > I can definitely see that logic. > > My concerns with this in practice are: > > - In the time between v1 and v2 (however long that ends up being) we are > left without any way to solve this problem, assuming we don't come up with > something else for v1. If developers start using custom elements where they > would previously have used a native element, this could well result in a > regression in accessibility for the web as a whole for this period, and we > will be stuck with the legacy of code written during this period for much > longer as well. > > - I realise that to some extent developers already aren't using native > elements, in part because of the styling issues we've discussed which also > affect is=. My concern here is that custom elements will further legitimise > this habit, which we've been making some recent progress in changing - we > stand to backslide on that effort. Having is= would allow us to roll it > into the "use native elements where possible" message rather than diluting > it with "unless you're using a custom element in which case here's a > checklist which you're not going to look at of everything it should do" > until we come up with an alternative. > > - v1 sets the stage for people to develop habits and expectations about > how custom elements work. New features tend to be slowly adopted, by both > browser vendors and (partly as a consequence) developers, so even if we do > come up with something for v2, it will be even longer before it becomes > mainstream (and as I mentioned earlier we will still be stuck with code > written to v1 for much longer again). > > >> The way I look at this is that currently you have nothing, since only >> Chrome ships this. There's a chance to get three more browsers if you >> make some concessions on the warts. And then hopefully we can iterate >> from there in a more cooperative fashion. >> > > Here's where we differ, because: > - I don't think it's a wart. I've given this a great deal of thought and I > keep ending up back at the current syntax when I try to think of reasonable > alternatives, even assuming we could magically fix all the implementation > issues with any alternative proposal. > - I don't think shipping in one browser is "nothing". People (both > framework authors and web page authors) are already writing code using is=. > > >> (The thread Steve shared about ARIA seemed like an equivalent effort >> by the way, to expose some of the semantics of native elements through >> simple attributes.) >> > > Thanks for the pointer - I followed up on that thread with some thoughts > on that proposal. >
Received on Monday, 8 June 2015 21:17:32 UTC