I don't think defining a slot based on an attribute value is something we'd 
like to support.

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Justin Fagnani <justinfagn...@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Another technique I've seen used is compound selectors, which could be used 
> to migrate from one selector to another while preserving backwards 
> compatibility, or to provide some nice default distributions that are also 
> accessible via a class or attribute (ie, select="header, .header").
> 
> Could slots have multiple names to support something like this?
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Justin Fagnani <justinfagn...@google.com 
> <mailto:justinfagn...@google.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com 
> <mailto:rn...@apple.com>> wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Justin Fagnani <justinfagn...@google.com 
> > <mailto:justinfagn...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I do want the ability to redirect distributed nodes into a holes in the 
> > base template, so that part is welcome to me. However, my first reaction to 
> > the slot idea is that forcing users to add the content-slot attribute on 
> > children significantly impairs the DOM API surface area of custom elements.
> >
> > For the single-level distribution case, how is this different from <content 
> > select="[content-slot=name]"> except that content select can distribute 
> > based on features of the children that might already exist, like tag names 
> > or an attribute?
> 
> At the conceptual level, they're equivalent.  However, we didn't find the 
> extra flexibility of using CSS selectors compelling as we mentioned in our 
> proposal [1].
> 
> I personally would like to see more power, especially positional selectors. 
> Some components would be better off selecting their first child, rather than 
> requiring a class.
> 
> [1] See points 3 and 4 in 
> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Proposal-for-changes-to-manage-Shadow-DOM-content-distribution#some-issues-with-the-current-shadow-dom-spec
>  
> <https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Proposal-for-changes-to-manage-Shadow-DOM-content-distribution#some-issues-with-the-current-shadow-dom-spec>
> 
> Point 4 is interesting, because unless I'm missing something (which could 
> be!) it's incorrect. You can create selectors with :not() that exclude the 
> content selectors that come after in document order. I would rewrite the 
> example as:
> 
> <template>
>   <content select=".header"></content>
>   <content select=":not(.footer)"></content>
>   <content select=".footer"></content>
> </template>
> Cheers,
>   Justin
>  
> 
> 
> - R. Niwa
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to