On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Justin Fagnani <justinfagn...@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Domenic Denicola <d...@domenic.me> wrote: > >> In case it wasn't clear, named slots vs. tag names is purely a bikeshed >> color (but an important one, in the "syntax is UI" sense). None of the >> details of how the proposal works change at all. >> > They're not equivalent, because any element can have the right > content-slot value, but with tag names, only one (or maybe N) names would > be supported. > Indeed they're not the same, and supporting both requires coming up with a syntax to allow both when doing reprojection or selection which rapidly converges on @select. We should only support a single selection type for v1, either tag names or content-slot. > If you already knew that but still prefer content-slot attributes, then I >> guess we just disagree. But it wasn't clear. >> > I'm saying we should pick a single kind, not both. Our customers should decide which one. (btw the platform doesn't use dashes in attribute names, so this is either "slot" or "contentslot" when we add it, I'd suggest "slot"). - E
