> > I don't have enough technical understanding to know what is viable or not, >> you and others are saying that the current accessibility feature support >> baked in to custom elements spec via is= is not acceptable >> >> That seems rather disingenuous. >
where am I being disingenuous? I don't understand how the various pieces are pulled together to make an element work in browsers to an extent to be able to offer possible technical solutions. If I did I would. -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 29 January 2015 at 15:37, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Steve Faulkner > <faulkner.st...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't have enough technical understanding to know what is viable or > not, > > you and others are saying that the current accessibility feature support > > baked in to custom elements spec via is= is not acceptable > > That seems rather disingenuous. I have said these things: > > 1) Compared to <my-element> the is="" construct is a hack that is > unlikely to be attractive to those building libraries. Existing > libraries seem to support this. > > 2) As long as the styling problem for form controls remains unsolved, > making some form of automatic prototype mutation work for them is not > going to get them adoption. > > Others have already explained how turning 1) around is hard as > browsers, specifications, and stylesheets branch on local name rather > than instance checks. 2) is even harder and has always been the real > problem. > > > -- > https://annevankesteren.nl/ >
