- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 10:06:07 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADh5Ky3KQVp_gSyycSezxL0eZZ57mPBVukJ=tE8DBHBnxLoVQg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> > wrote: > > That section needs to be updated, because the ES6 spec had shifted a > little > > bit with regard to @@create. Filed > > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27769. > > Yeah, there's issues in general there, such as ES6 giving up on > explaining all of DOM :-( > > > > Conceptually, when I wrote it I'd imagined that the constructor will be > > called only when you explicitly invoke it (new FooElement...). When > parsing > > or upgrading, the constructor would not be called. The createdCallback > will > > be invoked in either case. > > Would you do the prototype munging that is specified in > "createdCallback" today? (I think it would be more clear if we made > that prototype munging part of the upgrade algorithm by the way.) How > else would that work? Pass a reference to the old element and let the > developer handle it? > Yes to the first question. I wasn't planning on doing anything different there. And yes, I would like to fix the munging clarity as part of https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27437. :DG< > > > -- > https://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 18:06:34 UTC