Re-evaluate slots and their roles

[VividLemon]

Review the following example from BCard.vue

<BCardFooter
      v-if="footer || hasFooterSlot || footerHtml"
      v-bind="footerAttrs"
      :class="footerClass"
    >
      <slot name="footer">
        {{ footer }}
      </slot>
    </BCardFooter>

In this situation, you have the prop 'footer' & slot 'footer' do the exact same thing.

In this exact situation, you are able to modify BCardFooter with props, but this leaves some things to be desired.

Perhaps it would be better to refactor it as

<slot name="footer">
<BCardFooter
      v-if="footer || hasFooterSlot || footerHtml"
      v-bind="footerAttrs"
      :class="footerClass"
    >
        {{ footer }}
    </BCardFooter>
</slot>

This provides the most flexibility for modifying values. While also preserving an easy way to modify only the text. Should this be implemented? Idk. It would be a deviation from the Bootstrap-vue standard. Some research into how we use slots, what is more common, and how bootstrap-vue uses slots, and what is most common. Then set one standard and go with it.

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. It will not be auto-closed

[cdmoro]

Hey, I think we should leave slots as is, for the following reasons:

• Backward compatibility, this is something familiar for the bootstrap-vue users, if they decide to move to bs-vue-next they should update the slot logic as well, so this would add a layer of complexity that we don't need atm
• The point of having a library like this is to emulate Bootstrap, so the Bootstrap card has to have a Bootstrap card footer in the footer place, and not another component.
• If the user wants to customize the Bootstrap card, they can use HTML elements directly, for instance:

<BCard no-body>
   <BCardBody>
      // Main content
  </BCardBody>
  <div class="card-footer text-body-secondary">
     // Footer content
  </div>
</BCard>

Does it make sense?