Re: Minimum viable custom elements

this turned up today:
A possible solution for web component subclasses
https://github.com/JanMiksovsky/base-template#a-possible-solution-for-web-component-subclasses

needs people who actually understand this stuff to critique ;-)

--

Regards

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

On 14 January 2015 at 14:45, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> I've been trying to think of the smallest setup that adds value, can
> get broad agreement, and is therefore hopefully interoperable fast.
>
> * ES6-style class syntax to declare the imperative constructor.
> * No subclassing of normal elements for now.
> * registerElement() to enable declarative syntax and createElement().
> * Parsing of declarative syntax invokes the registered constructor
> synchronously.
> * Existing lifecycle callbacks plus those agreed (copying, adopting).
>
> Notably this does not address upgrading. I think we can defer
> upgrading as it can be implemented in script fairly easily. You await
> for the imperative constructors to load and DOMContentLoaded at which
> point you traverse the tree and invoke replace() on those elements you
> want to upgrade. Ideally at some point we find a declarative solution
> for this, perhaps something like "HTML modules", but shipping a v1 of
> custom elements in multiple browsers should not have to wait for that.
>
> It also does not address subclassing normal elements. Again, while
> that seems desirable the current ideas are not attractive long term
> solutions. Punting on it in order to ship a v1 available everywhere
> seems preferable.
>
>
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>