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

Re: Minimum viable custom elements

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:18:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky1UG-mdfDXiZfofN-5hg0xKtawg42b88wHa-KnnQKyQaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> * I think we could iterate towards a v2 that has an aspect of
> upgrading but perhaps works a bit differently from the current setup.
> E.g. a way to include an entire subtree of custom elements with a
> fallback mechanism of sorts. Or perhaps something inspired by
> JavaScript modules.

Why is "Not having identity at creation-time is currently a mismatch with
the rest of the platform" a problem? Why does it all have to be consistent
across the board? Are there any other platform objects that are created by
HTML parser or a similar device?

> * Upgrading can be added, but moving from Brain transplants to a more
> normal working constructor would be impossible after the fact.

Why is this a problem? Is this for design purity?

Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 19:19:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:43 UTC