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: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:16:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78h=c6FQQBm936wm111Z7wZx5_5w_RdrZjTBonz4=rP3NQ@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 13:17:12 UTC

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