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
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
On 13 June 2015 at 15:30, Léonie 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
On 7 May 2015 at 06:43, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.com wrote: On another thread recent thread, leonie and chaals  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
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  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,
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
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
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.