How should the new <selectedoption> element work?

IMO, this whole cloning idea is overcomplicated. Let the duplication of markup happen server side or in React (or whatever).

If the developer wants a <selectedoption>, they should fill it with <option> elements that correspond to the <option> elements that appear in the dropdown. Each option could reuse the <label for=""> pattern to associate them with their counterpart.

Then, when an option is selected by the end user, the corresponding option inside the <selectedoption> would get a `selected` attribute.

The default CSS would be:

selectedoption > option { display: none; } selectedoption > option[selected] { display: block; }

This gives complete control to the developer, works fine without JS, and wouldn't have shocking side effects.

As they say, "duplication is cheaper than the wrong abstraction".

I think it is worthwhile to revisit the starting motivation of customizing `<select>`. There would be generally two camps:

1. Declarative camp, where people expect two differently stylable copies of `<option>` somewhere in `<select>`. I don't think the exact copying mechanism and timing is very important here, as long as it can be safely done and works without JS.

2. Programmable camp, where people want the full control over appearance and behavior. We can reasonably assume that JS is required for this camp, and they generally have better understanding of what gets rendered or not in the first place.

Given both requirements, it seems wise to couple the clone timing with the event processing, which most cases in the second camp would have to do anyway. In the other words, the `input` event would have the default behavior of full cloning, and that default behavior should be prevented via `e.preventDefault()`. The second camp will almost always use this option and can use their own `MutationObserver` or similar to implement edge cases described in the OP. The timing and extent for the default behavior can be then optimized without affecting the second camp. It is even possible to distinguish two camps via different values of the `appearance` CSS property.

Sidetrack: It seems that `<selectedoption>` indeed exists mainly to distinguish two camps? But that leaves many edge cases like multiple `<selectedoption>` elements I believe. Maybe something like `<select reflect="foo"><button><option id="foo">...</option></button>...</select>` might be more appropriate. (`<output>` was my initial thought, but `<option>` would be more regular since it can't nest.)

Correct if I'm wrong, but this still doesn't allow us to define the dropdown content and selected content for each option separately? Maybe something like this:

    <select name="commenters">
        <option value="annevk">Anne van Kesteren</option>
        <option value="jakearchibald">
            <label>Jake Archibald</label>
            <selectedcontent>
                <div>
                    <img src="profile.avif" alt="Jake's photo">
                    <div>Jake Archibald<br><small>@jakearchibald</small></div>
                </div>
            </selectedcontent>
        </option>
        <option value="sorvell">Steve Orvell</option>
    </select>

The value attribute would be required when using these new sub elements. This structure feels familiar and progressive to me.

Naively, I would imagine that the following JavaScript would cause 1 DOM update, 1 redraw of the option if the dropdown is open, and 1 redraw of the selected option:

    document.querySelector('option:selected selectedcontent').innerHTML = 'Jake Archibald';

Obviously, things are different when using multiple. Maybe a `select > selectedcontent` element containing a copy of each `option > selectedcontent` element that is updated on change events.

I think it should be Option 2, "Automatically reset the content when anything in the selected <option> changes."

But furthermore, I think it should be possible to turn <selectedoption> mirroring entirely off, e.g. with an attribute like <selectedoption mirroring="none">, and I think most developers using reactive frameworks should prefer to do that.

If I'm using any reactive framework designed to do targeted DOM updates, I want my framework to be in complete control. When an option is selected, I'll populate <selectedoption> myself. When an <option> is modified, I modified it, and I know which <option> is selected, so I'll perform a targeted DOM update of <selectedoption> as well.

You had a whole separate podcast episode about how/why having the browser itself do targeted DOM updates is an enormous can of worms, mostly for attribute vs. property reasons. https://offthemainthread.tech/episode/putting-react-in-the-b... And anyway, every framework wants to handle mutations differently, and framework designers are in consensus that we haven't picked a clear winner yet. So, as nice as it would be if we had a replaceHTML API that everybody loved, we don't have that now, and we shouldn't hold up customizable <select> for this.

<selectedoption> mirroring is for folks who don't want to use any JavaScript (and I think that's a good thing). In that case, mirroring all updates automatically, synchronously, is the simplest thing that can possibly work.

Developers who want optimal performance want full control, and they just want to turn mirroring entirely off.

Why should styling even have a separate element? And duplicated? I thought the whole point of CSS was to not clutter HTML with styling.

This shouldn't be a literal new element. It should be a psuedo-element like other component parts like `::-[engine]-slider-thumb` are. You can then style `select::selected-option` and not have to mangle your HTML or worry about mirroring HTML.

I would lean towards option 1, because it's the only one which doesn't lock the other options out.

You can just not provide selectedoption or provide it in a limited way, and see what patterns emerge in how people use it in practice. Maybe it'll turn out that people want something completely different from selectedoption's current design. Maybe it'll turn out that people often want to display something different between the select menu and the select button and selectedoption doesn't actually bring much to the table.

My feeling is that the most important situation to consider here is where the updating happens from third-party JS. If you're writing your own JS, it isn't that much harder to just target the selectedoption as well as the original one, and if you're using a full-fat framework like React or whatever it's downright easy. So I think the benefit of providing an explicit API to trigger a clone is limited.

So that leaves the various automatic options, either synchronous, debounced, or the fancy targeted version. This seems like a pretty straightforward complexity/performance tradeoff to me, with the synchronous version being the simplest (both to implement and to understand) and going up from there.

With that in mind, I'm inclined toward the middle option (changes are synced automatically, but batched in the next microtask) since it feels like the best balance of complexity/usability. Seems like it would eliminate some of the biggest performance footguns, without being too much of a bear to implement or too difficult to understand.

On the other hand, I would personally also be ok with no syncing at all, just the initial clone when an option is selected, if it would mean we get this feature sooner. Really looking forward to not having to roll my own dropdowns.

If you're using a framework like React to manage updates to the DOM, then you probably don't want to use selectedoption in the first place because it's just as easy and more flexible/predictable to use the framework's existing patterns for keeping different parts of the DOM in sync.

So the main target audience for selectedoption is probably people not using a framework, and using no or little JavaScript. That audience probably would want selectedoption to "just work" without having to manually call a function to reset things. So while option 1 seems like a reasonable option to me personally as someone who mainly works with React, it's probably not what most people using selectedoption would want.

Option 2 just has too much potential for introducing hard to debug and hard to fix performance issues, so I feel like it's automatically not the best choice. Its main advantage is that it's probably the most straightforward to understand/explain.

Option 4 would help with the performance issues, but it sounds like it would be a nightmare for browsers to implement. It would also be a bit difficult to explain to devs how exactly it works and what edge cases need to be considered (like mutating the selectedoption "fork" potentially causing issues).

So by process of elimination option 3 seems like the best to me. It solves the performance issues but it's still pretty easy to understand/explain. It's main disadvantage seems to be that from the perspective of code running synchronously it's possible for the selectedoption and option to get out of sync, but 1) it's a bit hard to imagine a practical use case for needing to do this kind of comparison and 2) simply waiting until the next microtask before doing the comparison would probably be an easy fix even if this is a problem in some cases.

For all of these options, it might be useful for there to be some way to intercept the default behavior. For example maybe there could be some event such that calling .preventDefault() inside an event handler has the side effect of preventing the selectedoption from being reset, if resetting it is not desired. Of course you don't need to use selectedoption at all if the automatic resetting is not desired, but maybe there will be some cases where you only want to make an exception in a few cases but generally do want the selectedoption default behavior.

> Option: Nothing by default, but provide a way to trigger an update

I would strongly suggest this option unless there's a strong reason the browser must keep the elements in sync automatically.

Unless I'm mistaken, the other options could all be done in userland with a MutationObserver, a debounce method wrapping a timeout, and custom logic optimizing updates for specific attributes or changes.

I'm particularly worried about how automatic updates/cloning will work across different frontend frameworks. Today's more popular frameworks already diverge quite a bit with how they handle rerendering and DOM updates, and the next big framework to come along could take a more radical approach to rendering and interactivity.

In my opinion, anything that can reasonably be done in user code should be done there - at least until it causes enough problems that it needs to be solidified into browser specs. I'm always worried that the any clever built-in magic may work today but cause problems later, and because removing the spec is difficult most users would just skip the new <selectedoption> element all together.

Is this a path towards a fully style-able select element that still operates correctly with keyboard and accessibility features?

It never fails to amaze me how many bad semi functional “select” controls I encounter on a regular basis. I must be part of the small minority that fills out forms entirely with the keyboard using the tab key and prefix matching.

Is <button> a valid child of <select> now? How do we deal with an "interact:able" element nested inside another such element gracefully? (i.e. not pushing a lot of preventDefaults and stopping event bubbling here and there).

IMO, the extra functionality this gives does not warrant the complexity, extra cognitive load and learning curve for new developers.

Existing solutions solve enough use cases, and the remaining use cases can use javascript to build whatever they like.

It looks like the proposal is to build a little single purpose reactive UI engine into <select><button><selectedcontent>, and we're talking over the details.

To me it's a bad idea from the top.

Either leave reactive updates to frameworks, or develop a general built-in reactive framework. Building a one-off that introduces an all-new pattern into the browser seems like a perpetual headache.

This seems overcomplicated. Maybe I'm missing something, but is there some reason not just to define a psuedoelement on the current option?

  option::picker-current { ... }

First option is clearly best just because it lets developers decide. Every select library should have a method like this and I breathe a sigh of relief every time I find one.

Better add a <optiontitle> element

Someone tell me I'm wrong and why, but this whole thing seems like unnecessary complication? We have JavaScript for bespoke select tags.

Who is in charge of these HTML changes? This is horrible. It’s bad enough that for the last three decades we’ve have to use the `selected` attribute, now we are going to have a `button` in `select` with a `selectedoption` tag?

Please, just No!

The CSS for the style of the element belongs with the `select` tag. And all that should be needed to demark the selected option is a matching `value` attribute.

I get the sense that the people currently working on HTML and CSS are front-end designers and not programmers. We need functional design, polymorphism and simplicity, not just more kitchen sinks.