On 14 June 2015 at 01:41, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> it makes more sense to work on stylability of standard elements.
I'd like to keep the is="" construct (or better name) in the knowledge
that it's a stopgap for v1, and put our energies we're currently
expending debating this into styling standar
On 13 June 2015 at 15:30, Léonie Watson wrote:
> why not use the extends= syntax you mentioned?
>
> Push
because browsers that don't know about web components wouldn't pay any
attention to , and render "Push" as plain text.
Browsers that don't know about web components will fall back to
with
On 12 June 2015 at 21:26, Tobie Langel wrote:
> I'm also concerned developers will mistakenly write:
>
>
>
> As it is much closer in form to what they want to achieve (see the
> extend=parent syntax I wrote earlier).
That's true (and I've done exactly this myself). But wouldn't
solve that
On 7 May 2015 at 06:43, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> On another thread recent thread, leonie and chaals [3] talked about adding
> behaviours to ARIA.
this makes sense, but (unless I'm inventing nonsense because I'm mad,
which is definitely possible), doesn't this describe the current
behaviour in many
On 29 January 2015 at 19:48, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> And we have a proposal to do both of these things: decorators [1]
yes, indeed. What is the status of decorators? Last I looked, it had
been removed from the "web components" umbrella, so I thought it had
been sent to a farm upstate, but I haven'
On 29 January 2015 at 19:09, Brian Kardell wrote:
> composition actually seems to let you express something equally good without
> ambiguity more easily except insofar as giving you a really first-class
> fallback option if you don't support JS, but... I'm having a really hard
> time imagining mor
On 29 January 2015 at 14:54, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> I think being able to extend existing elements has potential value to
> developers far beyond accessibility (it just so happens that accessibility
> is helped a lot by re-use of existing HTML features.)
I agree with everything Steve has said a
On 7 May 2014 20:03, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> Requiring a dash is pretty ugly. I would allow any attribute, and we'll
> just have to be careful when introducing new global ones.
I think the ship HMS Ugly has already sailed, given a dash is
compulsory for the names of custom elements. Also, requiri
