W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: Custom elements contentious bits

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:23:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CADnb78h_u6k0WxZRZZc+oDCV4K_KfPcxZ4jJuL8PJrrV-3TeJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> wrote:
> A bit ago Jan put together an initial draft of the "contentious bits" for custom elements, in preparation for our January F2F. Today I went through and expanded on the issues he put together, with the result at https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Custom-Elements:-Contentious-Bits. It morphed into a kind of agenda for the meeting, containing "Previously contentious bits", "Contentious bits", "Other things to work out", and "Other issues worth mentioning".
> It would be lovely if other vendors could take a look, and fill in anything they think is missing, or correct any inaccuracies.

So my impression is that Apple is still in favor of synchronous
construction. Talking to developers from Ember.js they care about that
too (to the extent they even think this problem is worthwhile
solving). The "upgrade" problem is a more general problem we also have
with service workers and such. There's some kind of boostrapping thing
that might warrant a more general solution.

Would be great to have some cards on the table.

And with respect to that, Mozilla is interested in shipping Shadow
DOM. We continue to have concerns with regards to lack of integration
with the HTML Standard, but hope those will get resolved. Custom
elements is less of a priority for us at this point, so we're not sure
what to make of this meeting if things are still up in the air.

Received on Thursday, 10 December 2015 20:24:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:58 UTC