Re: Minimum viable custom elements from Dimitri Glazkov on 2015-01-16 (public-webapps@w3.org from January to March 2015)

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:34:11 -0800
To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky1YrffCrNq77WmubYBV4_-JsNxtY7hWJE-xDtJiX_g2_g@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:

>
> The only reason you need to have the two-stage setup is because you want
> to support asynchronous upgrading of elements.  As we have repeatedly
> stated in the past, we don't support a design that involves upgrading
> elements after the element construction if it meant that we can't use ES6
> constructor in the non-upgrade case.  We'll submit a formal objection if
> necessary.
>

Could you summarize the reasons behind such a strong position?

:DG<

Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 02:34:38 UTC