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

Re: Minimum viable custom elements

From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:36:34 -0800
Cc: Chris Bateman <chrisb808@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <5C60D3C3-D2B7-447D-9A65-AB896158A7C3@apple.com>
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>

> On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Chris Bateman <chrisb808@gmail.com <mailto: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.

Indeed.  Also, authors are used to the idea of including a fallback content inside an element after canvas and object elements and this fits well with their mental model.

- R. Niwa
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 18:37:03 UTC

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