- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:16:50 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > With custom tags everything must be bolted on, with type extensions this is > not the case. I don't disagree with this, but is="" solves none of the problems of why developers moved away from native elements in the first place. As long as styling native form controls is a problem, is="" is not going to help us. In other words, is="" is not what is going to make Gmail stop its <div> abuse to mean <button>. is="" solves none of the problems for which ARIA was invented as a workaround. Furthermore, is="" has considerably worse developer ergonomics compared to custom elements making it unlikely to be used much. > It may be that it is too hard to implement type extensions (i freely admit > much of the discussion on this thread is over my head), but I do not think > that it should be dismissed out of hand or that the consideration should > characterised as "longdesc mark II" ;-) is="" is not that hard. What is hard is making subclassing native elements work with good developer ergonomics. Making the markup of a subclass of HTMLButtonElement just as elegant as a subclass of HTMLElement is. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 13:17:12 UTC