[Custom Elements] Should I write v1 Custom Elements in a way backwards compatible with v0 API?

2016-08-20 Thread /#!/JoePea
onnectedCallback() { // code removed for brevity... } detachedCallback() { this.disconnectedCallback() } // back-compat } classCache.set(elementClass, WebComponent) return WebComponent } Any thoughts? */#!/*JoePea

Re: [Custom Elements] Not requiring hyphens in names.

2016-04-22 Thread /#!/JoePea
ents was posted in the > discussion: > https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/239#issuecomment-190603674 > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 7:01 AM, /#!/JoePea <trus...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >

Re: [Custom Elements] Not requiring hyphens in names.

2016-04-14 Thread /#!/JoePea
ld 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

Re: [Custom Elements] Not requiring hyphens in names.

2016-04-13 Thread /#!/JoePea
! /#!/JoePea On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Nick Dugger <nick.dugg...@gmail.com> 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 added to spec withou

[Custom Elements] Not requiring hyphens in names.

2016-04-13 Thread /#!/JoePea
(document.createElement('someelement')) ``` /#!/JoePea

Re: [Custom Elements] They are globals.

2016-04-12 Thread /#!/JoePea
t('handy-form', HandyForm) document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('handy-form')) ``` - Joe /#!/JoePea

Re: [Custom Elements] They are globals.

2016-04-11 Thread /#!/JoePea
Class from './SomeClass' import OtherClass from './OtherClass' html` <${SomeClass}> <${OtherClass}> ` ``` /#!/JoePea On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Domenic Denicola <d...@domenic.me> wrote: > I think you are being misled by a superfic

Re: [Custom Elements] More ES6-like API

2016-04-11 Thread /#!/JoePea
Thanks Ryosuke! That's looking a lot better. /#!/JoePea On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> 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 sp

[Custom Elements] They are globals.

2016-04-11 Thread /#!/JoePea
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

Re: [Custom Elements] Extension of arbitrary elements at runtime.

2016-04-11 Thread /#!/JoePea
...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:11 PM, /#!/JoePea <trus...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','trus...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> The is="" attribute lets one specify that some element is actually an >> extended version

[Custom Elements] Extension of arbitrary elements at runtime.

2016-04-10 Thread /#!/JoePea
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