Re: Minimum viable custom elements

Hi Anne,

I have not suggested is= as the method that must be implemented (I have not
demanded anything), what I have tried to suggest is that minimum viable
custom elements with all accessibility as bolt-on is a poor solution by
design.  From an acc view it means custom elements are nothing more than
<div>s with fancy names.



--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>

On 16 January 2015 at 13:16, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> 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/
>