There appears to be rough consensus for:
- ES6-style classes (Spec/Chrome: mutating prototype)
- Subclassing of HTMLElement and SVGElement
- registerElement() API to tie a class to a local name
- Lifecycle callbacks for: insertion into a document, removal from a document, mutation of an attribute
Additional lifecycle callbacks
There's a proposal in various bugs to offer these lifecycle callbacks as well:
- Adopting so when moving nodes across documents adjustments can be made (e.g. an
<img>has its animation restarted). This callback needs to be passed the old and new document.
- Cloning so
cloneNode()can have similar semantics for custom elements as it does for e.g.
<input>. For cloning we want the browser to create a clone (via the constructor) and copy all content attributes. Then the callback is passed the clone, a document, and the clone children flag (note that these are only needed for children not part of a tree, for elements such as
<template>, children part of the tree are handled by the browser).
Use symbols to identify lifecycle callbacks
It has been suggested that we should use symbols rather than names ending in
Callback to avoid collisions with libraries.
Upgrading is the concept of going from a piece of markup, such as
<my-div data-teehee="💩"></my-div>, to an object in a tree.
|Spec/Chrome||A basic element is created by the parser and then its prototype is mutated at a later stage followed by a callback.||
|Brain transplant ("Dmitry")||A basic element is created by the parser and a callback registered by the developer is invoked at a later point to turn that basic element into a custom element.||
|Dummy replacement||A dummy element is created by the parser and replaced at a later point by an actual instance of the custom element created by invoking the constructor registered by the developer.||
|Synchronous constructor||The constructor registered by the developer is invoked by the parser at the point the custom element is created and inserted into the tree.||
(Written under the assumption that mutating the prototype of the basic element is no longer considered viable.)
Subclassing existing elements
Subclassing existing elements is hard as implementation-wise identity is both object-based and name / namespace based. Therefore subclassing an existing element (currently) requires that the name / namespace does not change.
A hack was invented to make this work:
<button is="my-button">. That hack is not well liked leaving us two options:
- We leave this for now and work on this in parallel while stabilizing a smaller subset of custom elements.
- We block on this and delay even more.
(Assuming that not all implementers are suddenly going to be okay with this hack.)