I think the reason these conversations devolve (other than Twitter itself, which you're right to identify) is an unwillingness to entertain the idea that WCs have flaws, as opposed to temporary shortcomings that can be addressed with more spec work
-
-
Replying to @Rich_Harris @AdamRackis and
We entertain that idea every day. Like anything, WCs have shortcomings, and we know them as well or better than anyone. I think we just have different opinions about whether those shortcomings are fatal flaws, and whether it's time to make that judgment yet.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @graynorton @Rich_Harris and
TBH, I don't know who will be proven right. I do think that, over the long term, the web ecosystem will be healthier if the platform itself is better equipped out of the box to meet the demands of modern web dev and isn't permanently reliant on a thick layer of abstractions.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @graynorton @AdamRackis and
But while we're waiting for a suitable time to make that judgment, there is a real cost to all these proliferating standards (the thing I referred to at the very top of this thread) — particularly if the answer turns out to be 'yep, mistakes were made', and we're left with cruft
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Rich_Harris @AdamRackis and
I think the process is working, in its frustratingly slow and imperfect way. There were a bunch of things in the original WC vision (e.g. Model Driven Views + Object.observe, HTML Imports) that died before crossing the finish line, on their merits.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @graynorton @Rich_Harris and
Custom Elements and Shadow DOM have some very solid use cases that I think are fairly uncontroversial at this point.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @graynorton @Rich_Harris and
What's less clear is whether the current shortcomings of these primitives for more mainstream use cases can be addressed with further spec work.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @graynorton @Rich_Harris and
We think they likely can, whereas you're understandably skeptical and concerned. But the process will play out again. If the incremental features aren't good enough, they won't survive.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @graynorton @AdamRackis and
Shadow DOM (in its current form) definitely isn't uncontroversial. I maintain a framework that compiles to WC, and the number one WC-related request was 'please add an option to disable SD'. But it's not possible, because content distribution is coupled to styling
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Rich_Harris @graynorton and
In the meantime, how many of these new features are going to be presented as a fait accompli, like MDV etc were, only to be yanked away again later? Platform fatigue is real.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
MDV wasn't s fait-accomplis and anyone who says so is lying to you.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @Rich_Harris and
I was co-TL of the project (Parkour) that developed it alongside features like ES6 classes, async/await, shorter function syntax, many CSS proposals, etc. etc. MDV was demo'd and the feedback was "that's cool, but you should try to break it up"...so we did
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @Rich_Harris and
As a result, we collaborated widely to design features like Mutation Observers (joint design with Mozilla) and Object.observe() (to get the same semantics for the JS-side of the tree).
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes - 27 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.