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 "nothing". -- https://annevankesteren.nl/