Re: Minimum viable custom elements

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Steve Faulkner
<> wrote:
> I don't have enough technical understanding to know what is viable or not,
> you and others are saying that the current accessibility feature support
> baked in to custom elements spec via is= is not acceptable

That seems rather disingenuous. I have said these things:

1) Compared to <my-element> the is="" construct is a hack that is
unlikely to be attractive to those building libraries. Existing
libraries seem to support this.

2) As long as the styling problem for form controls remains unsolved,
making some form of automatic prototype mutation work for them is not
going to get them adoption.

Others have already explained how turning 1) around is hard as
browsers, specifications, and stylesheets branch on local name rather
than instance checks. 2) is even harder and has always been the real


Received on Thursday, 29 January 2015 15:37:48 UTC