From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:m...@apple.com]
> Does that sound right to you? > > If so, it is not much more appealing than "prototype swizzling" to us, since > our biggest concern is allowing natural use of ES6 classes. Got it, thanks. So it really does sound like it comes down to class XFoo extends HTMLElement { constructor() { super(); // init code here } } vs. class XFoo extends HTMLElement { [Element.created]() { // init code here } } which I guess we covered in the past at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015JanMar/0283.html as being a general instance of the inversion of control design pattern, which I still don't really understand Apple's objection to. I suppose we can leave that for tomorrow.