I've seen several mentions that the is="" construct is now
deprecated, which goes to show how early this process still is. We
might really need the input from people on the inner circle if we
go further with using webcomponents.
--
Don
On 6/27/2016 12:39 AM, Mark Giffin
wrote:
Michael,
On using the is= syntax to base your new element on an existing
HTML element:
<ol is="simple-steps">
I am almost positive that you cannot put more than one
value in the is="". I know a couple people who were on the web
components committee, I can try to get a definitive answer. It's
probably in the spec somewhere too.
Mark Giffin
Mark Giffin Consulting, Inc.
http://markgiffin.com/
On 6/26/2016 5:56 PM, Michael Priestley wrote:
I talked a bit more
about it with Don, and this is where my thinking is right now,
based on the descriptions of custom elements here:
https://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/#custom-elements-autonomous-drawbacks
- our two main alternatives are
autonomous custom elements, which we could give custom element
names to
- or customized built-in
elements, which would retain the name of an existing HTML
element plus the "is" attribute giving a custom element name
Example for autonomous
custom elements:
<simple-steps>
<simple-step>...</simple-step>
</simple-steps>
Pros:
- they have easily
understandable semantic names
- they look like XML, and can
more closely mimic XML specializations
Cons:
- nothing will happen remotely
resembling fallback processing (like rendering these as an
ordered list) without a bunch of _javascript_
- for an extended discussion of
how sucky this can be, see https://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/#custom-elements-autonomous-drawbacks
Example for customized
built-in elements
<ol is="simple-steps">
<li
is="simple-step">...</li>
</ol>
Pros:
- they process automatically as
list items
- they can be registered using
_javascript_ as special nodes, for extra behavior, but you only
need to identify the delta stuff
Cons:
- looks less like XML
Net
My clear preference is now for
customized built-in elements, given the warnings of the spec
against using autonomous custom elements when extending an
existing element type.
But the open question for me is
whether the "is" attribute can take multiple values. If it
can, it could map really cleanly to specializations. Even the
requirement for hyphenation in the element name could be a
mirror for the "/" in the XML class attribute.
Otherwise we'd be looking again
at limiting ourselves to one level of specialization, which
may still be on the page anyway - nobody has said they want it
yet.
So... does anyone have a
contact on the Web Platform Working Group? I couldn't find a
simple answer to my question anywhere, including here:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
If no one else has a contact
I'll poke around IBM.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
--
Don R. Day
Founding Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee (current version:
DITA
1.3)
LinkedIn: donrday Twitter:
@donrday
About.me: Don R. Day Skype:
don.r.day
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
--T.S. Eliot
Virus-free. www.avast.com
