I don’t care that it should extend Group specifically, but it does need to extend (or implement) a "Group-esque” component. Without that, HTML element components can’t contain other elements in MXML.
Which pieces are required for it to contain other elements in MXML? Not 100% sure about that. As far as what it needs? Not 100% sure but definitely: addElement addElementAt removeElement Pretty sure about DefaultProperty. Not sure about: Layout pieces States Transitions IMXMLDocument Various events? Dunno. I’d guess that Layout is probably something we *do* want to have. Requiring that to be specified using standard css doesn’t feel very “Royale-like” to me. States should likely be included as well to allow HTML elements to be modified by states. I don’t know why Transitions are included in Group in the first place, so I can’t comment on that. IMXMLDocument: Is that needed only for making it a base for an MXML file? Should HTML Element components have the ability to be used as a base for MXML? I don’t know the answers to this. Harbs > On May 10, 2018, at 2:19 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > On the other hand, I don't agree with Yishay's and Harb's concerns about the > NodeElementBase having to subclass Group in order to get MXML children. The > ability to specify children in MXML can be added to any class. What else > does NodeElementBase.as use from Group/GroupBase?
