Callback() } // back-compat
disconnectedCallback() {
// code removed for brevity...
}
detachedCallback() { this.disconnectedCallback() } //
back-compat
}
classCache.set(elementClass, WebComponent)
return WebComponent
}
Any thoughts?
*/#!/*JoePea
t; discussion:
> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/239#issuecomment-190603674
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 7:01 AM, /#!/JoePea wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
>> wrote:
>> > That means we lose the lingua franca that HTML provide
adow roots or the document, it's contained within the shadow root.
```
This would be awesome I think. It'd allow for a level of encapsulation
and modularization on a shadow-root basis (which can paired with
Custom Elements very nicely).
/#!/JoePea
ide them.
Riot.js likes not requiring hyphens too!
/#!/JoePea
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Nick Dugger wrote:
> I personal don't mind the hyphenation requirement for custom elements. Tab
> Atkins brings up a great point about ensuring that new elements will be able
> to be ad
meElement', SomeElement)
document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('someelement'))
```
/#!/JoePea
js
import HandyForm from './HandyForm'
// elements registered on the document won't cross into shadow roots
document.registerElement('handy-form', HandyForm)
document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('handy-form'))
```
- Joe
/#!/JoePea
dvantage of JavaScript scope directly without build tools:
```
import SomeClass from './SomeClass'
import OtherClass from './OtherClass'
html`
<${SomeClass}>
<${OtherClass}>
`
```
/#!/JoePea
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:2
Thanks Ryosuke! That's looking a lot better.
/#!/JoePea
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> That's exactly what we're doing. The latest spec uses ES6 class constructor
> to define custom elements. See an example below this section in DOM spec:
> htt
?
I don't really see the solution yet (if any), since the browser needs to
know about the elements in order to make them work.
Any thoughts? Is a more encapsulated approach possible?
Regards,
- Joe
--
/#!/JoePea
:
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:11 PM, /#!/JoePea > wrote:
>
>> The is="" attribute lets one specify that some element is actually an
>> extended version of that element.
>>
>> But, in order for this to work, the Custom Element definition has to
>
ply
adding is="" attributes as needed? Would this make things too
complicated?
The real reason I thought of this idea is because:
https://github.com/infamous/infamous/issues/5
There might be a better way, but thought I'd mention it just in case
it sparks any ideas.
Cheers!
- Joe
/#!/JoePea
It'd be nice if users could define actual constructors, as described here:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/423#issuecomment-208131046
Cheers!
- Joe
/#!/JoePea
12 matches
Mail list logo