[invokers] add an invoke method?

[bkardell]

In the w3c TAG review, there was a closing comment that

We feel it makes sense to have an invoke(action, invoker) method because it lays a path for future interactions with elements. We think that this might be more useful for custom elements or future features that are added to the platform.

We observe that a lack of additional arguments to invocations (or invoke()) are a concession toward the declarative nature of the core feature. Rather than a flaw, we see this as an important characteristic of the design. It simplifies this design and this characteristic seems like it is worth protecting. Richer interactions can remain the domain of script.

I don't know that we ever discussed that or if we feel like the current custom commands is covering this, but I'd like to discuss whether this is useful

I also added #1068 separately for the sentences that immediately followed this- it feels related but also separate.

[github-actions]

There hasn't been any discussion on this issue for a while, so we're marking it as stale. If you choose to kick off the discussion again, we'll remove the 'stale' label.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Open UI Community Group just discussed [invokers] add an invoke method?, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: We don't think we need this but will go back to TAG with that and a justification.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<brecht_dr> scribenick brecht_dr
<masonf> scribenick: brecht_dr
<masonf> q+
<brecht_dr> bkardell_ There was some feedback on the issues. one of them being that there should be an invoke method that you could call
<lwarlow> q+
<brecht_dr> masonf Sounds resonable to me.
<brecht_dr> masonf One question I have is that following usecase: You can invoke invokers by button onClick. that would be a synonym in this case
<brecht_dr> luke I don't think it's an invoke on a button, i think you call invoke on the target
<brecht_dr> luke I kind of understand why this might be a nice to have, I also don't think it's really needed
<brecht_dr> luke If we take popover for example, we already have toggle, show, etc...
<bkardell_> q+
<brecht_dr> luke I think the only place where this is maybe useful is where we would invoke a custom action, but you can already dispatch a command event
<brecht_dr> luke For me personally, when it was raised, it did make sense.
<brecht_dr> luke For any other target that we have where there will be special behavior for an invoker. It wil be placed in the JS API.
<brecht_dr> luke Maybe it's a command function, in any case, naming it can be hard
<brecht_dr> luke I personally believe its not super useful
<masonf> ack mason
<masonf> ack lwarlow
<brecht_dr> masonf What happens now if you manually fire a command event on a popover, can you make that behavior occur?
<brecht_dr> luke no
<masonf> ack bkardell
<brecht_dr> bkardell_ I hear two things
<brecht_dr> bkardell_ The situation on the ground has changed since the review, and so while it might've made sense, we think it makes less sense now
<brecht_dr> bkardell_ I wonder if it makes sense if can make that case on the tag issue and see if they agree
<brecht_dr> bkardell_ I would hate to think we would simply dissagree, but we should at least check it
<brecht_dr> luke I agree, it's important feedback and we shoudl consider it. I will write up my thoughts and get back to that
<brecht_dr> ack lwarlow
<lwarlow> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We don't think we need this but will go back to TAG with that and a justification.
<brecht_dr> +1
<lwarlow> RESOLVED: We don't think we need this but will go back to TAG with that and a justification.
<nmn> +1