W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Minimum viable custom elements

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:50:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78icpnPwL8oUaOu7SqwH8Rz5fUcukwigTD-RhLQt853SoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> * Existing lifecycle callbacks plus those agreed (copying, adopting).
>
> Could you give us pointers for a proposed definition of these two callbacks if there is any?

I added a short description here:

  https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/CustomElements#Additional_lifecycle_callbacks

These would basically cover these extension points that the DOM
already offers and that HTML (and perhaps SVG) makes use of:

  https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-node-adopt-ext
  https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-node-clone-ext


>> It also does not address subclassing normal elements. Again, while
>> that seems desirable the current ideas are not attractive long term
>> solutions. Punting on it in order to ship a v1 available everywhere
>> seems preferable.
>
> I can't be enthusiastic enough to support this motion since that's more or less what I've been saying for the past six months or so.

I hope that we are iterating to a subset that everyone is happy with.
It would be great to get custom elements in all browsers. As far as I
can tell the main sticking point is still how exactly we map markup to
objects:

  https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/CustomElements#Upgrading


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 15:50:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:25 UTC