W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Minimum viable custom elements

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:41:54 -0800
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky29SQ6qUsvLteck=tvFMKLJR2bx5H2GssUgDmbNY4uVsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
One additional point, unrelated to accessibility: "is" also enables
piggybacking to special parser behavior of existing elements. For example,
I can extend <template> or <link>.

Here are some examples:




On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com> wrote:

> On 29 January 2015 at 14:54, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think being able to extend existing elements has potential value to
> > developers far beyond accessibility (it just so happens that
> accessibility
> > is helped a lot by re-use of existing HTML features.)
> I agree with everything Steve has said about accessibility. Extending
> existing elements also gives us progressive enhancement potential.
> Try https://rawgit.com/alice/web-components-demos/master/index.html in
> Safari or IE. The second column isn't functional because it's using
> brand new custom elements. The first column loses the web componenty
> sparkles but remains functional because it extends existing HTML
> elements.
> There's a similar story with Opera Mini, which is used by at least
> 250m people (and another potential 100m transitioning on Microsoft
> feature phones) because of its proxy architecture.
> Like Steve, I've no particularly affection (or enmity) towards the
> <input type="radio" is="luscious-radio"> syntax. But I'd like to know,
> if it's dropped, how progressive enhancement can be achieved so we
> don't lock out users of browsers that don't have web components
> capabilities, JavaScript disabled or proxy browsers. If there is a
> concrete plan, please point me to it. If there isn't, it's
> irresponsible to drop a method that we can see working in the example
> above with nothing else to replace it.
> I also have a niggling worry that this may affect the uptake of web
> components. When I led a dev team for a large UK legal site, there's
> absolutely no way we could have used a technology that was
> non-functional in older/proxy browsers.
> bruce
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2015 15:42:22 UTC

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