Re: Minimum viable custom elements

>
>  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.
>

where am I being disingenuous?

I don't understand how the various pieces are pulled together to make an
element work in browsers to an extent to be able to offer possible
technical solutions. If I did I would.


--

Regards

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

On 29 January 2015 at 15:37, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> 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
> problem.
>
>
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
>