Re: Minimum viable custom elements

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Steve Faulkner
<> wrote:
> 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.

Sure, I hope everyone understands that, but do you see a viable way to
get there? Again, I think that unless we solve the styling problem for
native elements, we're not going to see them adopted, not even if you
can subclass them (and proper subclassing without the is="" hack is
another hard problem, as explained).


Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 16:53:08 UTC