Re: Minimum viable custom elements

On 29 January 2015 at 19:09, Brian Kardell <> wrote:
> composition actually seems to let you express something equally good without
> ambiguity more easily except insofar as giving you a really first-class
> fallback option if you don't support JS, but... I'm having a really hard
> time imagining more than 3-4 cases  where that's really a useful thing.

I'm thinking of all the HTML elements that people feel compelled to
recreate with div soup and JS  (some of this is because the CSS hooks
don't exist, but I doubt we could ever define all conceivable CSS
hooks, but that's another story).

 The canonical example is <button> but <input type="date"
is="fab-calendar"> ; <input type="range" is="rotary-knob">; <input
type="checkbox" is="woot-checkbox"> <!-- OMG the checkmark spills
outside the box and it's in corporate magenta and indigo! -->

All of these degrade very nicely and work even when JS isn't present,
whereas <woot-checkbox> and <fab-calendar> don't.

I'd also very much like to do <nav is="glorious-accordian"> etc.

"a really first-class fallback option if you don't support JS" is
vital for the quarter of a billion people who use Opera Mini and the
100 million people who use the Nokia proxy browser. Fallback rather
than non-functional pages is vital for the people who don't use latest
greatest Chromium or Gecko browsers.

Sure, not everyone will do this. But not everyone puts alt text on
images; that's not an argument for removing <img alt> from the

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2015 19:44:18 UTC