It's incredibly important that we agree that association of a <template>
with <element> happens on the element side, something like: <element
template="foo-template"> (or by placing the template inside element, if
that is the API we want). I don't think this part is opinion, but because
doing the reverse - marking on the <template> which <element> it refers to
- hinders a few valid use-cases:
- one <template> from being used by many different <elements>
- changing a template association on a single instance of an element type
- say you have an <x-foo> on the page that you want to switch
template associations on, but not for every other <x-foo> in the
document.
Wouldn't this case be far more clear cut if you could just query for the
element and change some property? For instance: fooElement.template =
'foo-template-2'; Boom! This particular foo element just
switched templates.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Daniel Buchner <dan...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Here are a few (compelling?) answers/arguments:
>
> 1. Style elements had never done this before, yet it rocks socks:
> <style scoped>
> 2. It would be new for script elements, but hardly new for other
> elements. There are plenty of elements that have various behaviors or
> visual representations only when placed inside specific elements. Given
> this is already an advanced web API, I'm not sure a little upfront learning
> is a huge concern. We could even allow for this, given the paradigm is
> already established: <script scoped> *// could scope 'this' ref to
> the parentNode*
> 3. Are you referring to <template> attachment here? If so, I agree,
> thus the proposal I submitted allows for both (
> https://gist.github.com/csuwldcat/5360471). If you want your template
> automatically associated with your <element>, put it inside, if not, you
> can specify which <template> a custom element should use by reference to
> its ID.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:00 PM, John J Barton <
> johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Everyone's answer to this should be "no"; changing the expected value
>>> of the
>>> > top level "this", in some magical way, simply won't work.
>>>
>>> Can you explain why you feel this way?
>>>
>>
>> 1) Because <script> has never done this before, so it better be
>> compelling.
>> 2) Because causing |this| to change by moving the <script> tag in the
>> HTML or adding a layer of elements etc seems likely to cause hard to
>> understand bugs.
>> 3) Forcing the binding based on position is inflexible.
>>
>> To be sure this is implicit-declarative vs explicit-imperative bias, not
>> evidence.
>>
>> Oh, sorry you were asking Rick.
>> jjb
>>
>
>
