Re: Custom Elements: is=

2015-06-15 Thread Bruce Lawson
On 14 June 2015 at 01:41, Patrick H. Lauke re...@splintered.co.uk 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

Re: Custom Elements: is=

2015-06-13 Thread Bruce Lawson
On 12 June 2015 at 21:26, Tobie Langel to...@codespeaks.com wrote: I'm also concerned developers will mistakenly write: my-button is=button 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

Re: Custom Elements: is=

2015-06-13 Thread Bruce Lawson
On 13 June 2015 at 15:30, LĂ©onie Watson lwat...@paciellogroup.com wrote: why not use the extends= syntax you mentioned? my-button extends=button attributesPush/my-button because browsers that don't know about web components wouldn't pay any attention to my-button, and render Push as plain

Re: Making ARIA and native HTML play better together

2015-05-07 Thread Bruce Lawson
On 7 May 2015 at 06:43, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.com 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

Re: Minimum viable custom elements

2015-01-30 Thread Bruce Lawson
On 29 January 2015 at 19:48, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com 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,

Re: Minimum viable custom elements

2015-01-29 Thread Bruce Lawson
On 29 January 2015 at 14:54, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.com 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

Re: Minimum viable custom elements

2015-01-29 Thread Bruce Lawson
On 29 January 2015 at 19:09, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com 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

Re: Custom Elements: 'data-' attributes

2014-05-08 Thread Bruce Lawson
On 7 May 2014 20:03, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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.