On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > > I think one thing that is missing from this table/proposal is how the > prototype chain is hooked up. > > For the permanent case I would like to see the user defined object on > that chain. > > <script> > function FancyButton () {} > // registration and whatevs > </script> > > <button is=FancyButton id=b> > > b.constructor === FanceButton > b.__proto__ === FancyButton.prototype > b.__proto__.__proto__ === HTMLButtonElement.prototype
That sounds fine to me. I wouldn't want to require that authors use JS to define a binding though. If a binding doesn't define an API, just a shadow tree and some scoped styles, I would expect it to be purely declarative (still function when JS is disabled) both for the is="" case and the 'binding:' case. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'