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

Re: Minimum viable custom elements

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:12:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CADC=+jfLs4Z6B71DN0t3q-OzEb18VYa9_x-pkcWGQdhb3ON76Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Bateman <chrisb808@gmail.com>
Cc: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Chris Bateman <chrisb808@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I had noted in that post that wrapping a native element with a
> custom element was an option - only drawback is that the markup isn't as
> terse (which is generally advertised as one of the selling points of Custom
> Elements). But that doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me, if subclassing
> needs to be postponed.
>
> Chris
>
>
As I pointed out ealier:

<input is="x-foo">

<x-foo><input></x-foo>

seems like barely a ternseness savings worth discussing.



-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 18:12:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:25 UTC