On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alice Boxhall <aboxh...@google.com> wrote:
> - In the time between v1 and v2 (however long that ends up being) we are
> left without any way to solve this problem, assuming we don't come up with
> something else for v1. If developers start using custom elements where they
> would previously have used a native element, this could well result in a
> regression in accessibility for the web as a whole for this period, and we
> will be stuck with the legacy of code written during this period for much
> longer as well.

I don't see how it is a regression compared to the current situation.

> - I realise that to some extent developers already aren't using native
> elements, in part because of the styling issues we've discussed which also
> affect is=. My concern here is that custom elements will further legitimise
> this habit, which we've been making some recent progress in changing - we
> stand to backslide on that effort. Having is= would allow us to roll it into
> the "use native elements where possible" message rather than diluting it
> with "unless you're using a custom element in which case here's a checklist
> which you're not going to look at of everything it should do" until we come
> up with an alternative.

Most examples of custom elements to date are not actually with is="",
simply because custom tag names are much more appealing. The
ergonomics don't back up the message.

> - v1 sets the stage for people to develop habits and expectations about how
> custom elements work. New features tend to be slowly adopted, by both
> browser vendors and (partly as a consequence) developers, so even if we do
> come up with something for v2, it will be even longer before it becomes
> mainstream (and as I mentioned earlier we will still be stuck with code
> written to v1 for much longer again).

I don't see how it will be longer. is="" is not getting acceptance
as-is. So all this would result in is not getting custom elements
across browsers until v2 is done.

> Here's where we differ, because:
> - I don't think it's a wart. I've given this a great deal of thought and I
> keep ending up back at the current syntax when I try to think of reasonable
> alternatives, even assuming we could magically fix all the implementation
> issues with any alternative proposal.

I think if we figured out how the behavior of current elements is
composed and how to address the styling problem we'd be much closer to
an agreement. And I think everyone agrees those need to be solved, so
I'm a bit lost as to why we don't focus on those.

> - I don't think shipping in one browser is "nothing". People (both framework
> authors and web page authors) are already writing code using is=.

Well, I disagree. E.g. Microsoft had a ton of features shipping in
Internet Explorer 5.0 that were used and never ended up as-is (or at
all) in other browsers. In the long run it's pretty close to


Reply via email to