Re: The key custom elements question: custom constructors?

On 07/16/2015 08:30 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leithead@microsoft.com]
>
>> I've discussed this issue with some of Edge's key parser developers.
>
> Awesome; thank you for doing that!
>
>> I believe to be the most straightforward approach that most closely matches how the platform itself works
>
> Thanks, it's helpful to get this non-implementation-focused reasoning out in the open.
>
> What are your responses to Olli's concerns about how this is hard to spec properly? I.e. "no one ever managed to spec MutationEvents properly, and
> running author code during cloneNode(true) is at least as hard problem to solve." Are you concerned about interop? It sounds like it's technically
> feasible for you, but do you think it will be technically feasible in a way that is interoperable? (I realize that's a hard question to answer.)
>
>> For example, in parsing, I would expect that the callout happens after initial instance creation, but before the target node is attached to the
>> DOM tree by the parser.
>
> Can you expand on this more? In particular I am confused on how "initial instance creation" can happen without calling the constructor.
>
>> I am sympathetic to this concern, but have my own reservations about the proto-swizzle technique.
>
> I think this is not the correct positioning for this question. There are two independent questions: is it OK to run author code during parsing and
> cloning? And separately, is there utility to be gained from proto-swizzling? You can imagine (at least) four solutions for this 2x2 grid of yes/no
> responses. In this particular thread I really want to focus on the former question since it is foundational.
>
> ---
>
> It sounds like so far we have:
>
> - Mozilla against running author code during these times
That is too strongly said, at least if you refer to my email
(where I expressed my opinions, but as usually, others from Mozilla may have different opinions).
I said "I'd prefer if we could avoid that [Running author code during cloneNode(true)]."

And my worry is largely in the spec level.
It would be also a bit sad to reintroduce some of the issues MutationEvents have to the platform, now that we're
finally getting rid of those events



>- Microsoft for running author code during these times, but sympathetic to concerns in the
> opposite direction
>
> Is this correct so far?
>
> I suppose I should also note
>
> - Google against running author code during these times, based on investigation by Dominic (with an "i") into the complexity it would add to the
> platform/event loop/etc. (I believe the exact phrase "MutationEvents all over again" was used.)
>
>

Received on Thursday, 16 July 2015 09:33:15 UTC