On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote: >>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Domenic Denicola <d...@domenic.me> wrote: >>>> Between content-slot-specified slots, attribute-specified slots, >>>> element-named slots, and everything-else-slots, we're now in a weird place >>>> where we've reinvented a micro-language with some, but not all, of the >>>> power >>>> of CSS selectors. Is adding a new micro-language to the web platform worth >>>> helping implementers avoid the complexity of implementing CSS selector >>>> matching in this context? >>> >>> I don't think mapping an attribute value to a slot is achievable with a >>> content element with select attribute. >> >> <content select="[my-attr='the slot value']"> > > No. That's not what I'm talking here. I'm talking about putting the > attribute value into the insertion point in   , not distributing an > element based on an attribute value.
Oh, interesting. That appears to be a complete non-sequitur, tho, as no one has asked for anything like that. It's *certainly* irrelevant as a response to the text you quoted. > On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote: >>> I don't think defining a slot based on an attribute value is something we'd >>> like to support. >> >> That is *literally* what your proposal already is, except limited to >> only paying attention to the value of the "content-slot" attribute. > > Distributing elements based on the value of a single well scoped attribute > versus of an arbitrary attribute is A HUGE difference. Interesting. Why? And why do you think the difference is significant enough to justify such a limitation? You seem to be okay with distributing elements based on the *name* of an arbitrary attribute; can you justify why that is so much better than using the value that you're willing to allow it, but not the other? ~TJ