We don't need to drop element parameter as this is not fundamentally wrong
- it is a common pattern and removing it would be more confusing than
leaving it in.

Regarding the scope. It is very rare to have transclusion without an
isolated scope, so again, keeping it thus will be less confusing in the
long run.
On 5 Nov 2013 17:32, "Matjaž Lipuš" <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In docs/content/guide/directive.ngdoc:
>
> > @@ -634,8 +634,9 @@ redefines `name` as `Jeff`. What do you think the `{{name}}` binding will resolv
> >          return {
> >            restrict: 'E',
> >            transclude: true,
> > +          scope: {},
>
> you're right. unless directive has new scope, name gets overridden. but
> the new scope doesn't have to be isolate.
>
> so there are two things in master to fix
>
>    1.
>
>    create new scope
>
>    transclude: true,
>    scope : true,
>
>     2.
>
>    link function arguments
>
>    link: function (scope) {
>
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/angular/angular.js/pull/4774/files#r7438232>
> .
>