On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Domenic Denicola <d...@domenic.me> wrote:
> In case it wasn't clear, named slots vs. tag names is purely a bikeshed > color (but an important one, in the "syntax is UI" sense). None of the > details of how the proposal works change at all. > They're not equivalent, because any element can have the right content-slot value, but with tag names, only one (or maybe N) names would be supported. > If you already knew that but still prefer content-slot attributes, then I > guess we just disagree. But it wasn't clear. > I greatly prefer select, but this is a compromise to enable progress. > > From: Elliott Sprehn > Sent: Monday, May 18, 21:03 > Subject: Re: [webcomponents] How about let's go with slots? > To: Justin Fagnani > Cc: Philip Walton, Domenic Denicola, Daniel Freedman, Dimitri Glazkov, > Scott Miles, Ryosuke Niwa, Edward O'Connor, Anne van Kesteren, Travis > Leithead, Maciej Stachowiak, Arron Eicholz, Alex Russell, public-webapps > > I'd like this API to stay simple for v1 and support only named slots and > not tag names. I believe we can explain what <details> does with the > imperative API in v2. > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Justin Fagnani <justinfagn...@google.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Philip Walton <phi...@philipwalton.com> > wrote: > > Pardon my question if this has been discussed elsewhere, but it's not > clear from my reading of the "slots" proposal whether they would be allowed > to target elements that are not direct children of the component. > > I believe the with the `select` attribute this was implicitly required > because only compound selectors were supported (i.e. no child or descendent > combinators) [1]. > > I think the actually issue is that you might have fights over who gets > to redistribute an element. Given > > <my-el-1> > > <my-el-2> > > <div content-slot="foo"></div> > > </my-el-2> > > </my-el-1> > > If both my-el-1 and my-el-2 have "foo" slots, who wins? What if the winner > by whatever rules adds a clashing slot name in a future update? > > I mentioned in this in Imperative API thread, but I think the least > surprising way forward for distributing non-children is to allow nodes to > cooperate on distribution, so a element could send its distributed nodes to > an ancestor: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015AprJun/0325.html > > > > > Would named slots be able to target elements farther down in the tree? > > > > [1] > http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#dfn-content-element-select > > > > >