From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:m...@apple.com]
> Does that sound right to you?
>
> If so, it is not much more appealing than "prototype swizzling" to us, since
> our biggest concern is allowing natural use of ES6 classes.
Got it, thanks. So it really does sound like it comes down to
class XFoo extends HTMLElement {
constructor() {
super();
// init code here
}
}
vs.
class XFoo extends HTMLElement {
[Element.created]() {
// init code here
}
}
which I guess we covered in the past at
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015JanMar/0283.html as
being a general instance of the inversion of control design pattern, which I
still don't really understand Apple's objection to. I suppose we can leave that
for tomorrow.
