What's exhausting is the suggestion that only those directly contributing to these standards have the right to point out their flaws. If I put an oar in, I'm going to be rowing in a different direction to you, because I think the boat is pointing the wrong way!
-
-
Replying to @Rich_Harris @dmitryshimkin and
You're attributing malign or ignorant motivation -- that we didn't look at SVG extensibility (we did; went for HTML first) -- to a situation far more complex than your characterisation. If you spent this effort lobbying Mozilla and Apple for this, it could get done quickly.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @Rich_Harris and
WC feature dev slowed after '16 as we waited for Mozilla and MSFT to catch up. Took their sweet, sweet time. Big new proposals moving faster recently, landing apace: intrinsic role, form participation, :part, etc. SVG (and MathML) extensibility need attention now.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @dmitryshimkin and
I'm attributing nothing of the sort — I know perfectly well that everyone here is smart and has good intent, and have never — would never — imply otherwise. But here you are again implying it's somehow my responsibility to convince Apple and Mozilla to prioritise these things,
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Rich_Harris @slightlylate and
when I don't need to because I can already do them as long as I avoid WCs! I don't know why it's so hard to say 'these things have some value in the following scenarios, but they currently have some major drawbacks and shouldn't be considered a general solution'.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Rich_Harris @slightlylate and
Instead we get 'eat your greens, jam tomorrow' — just list after list of all the ways in which the specs will *eventually* catch up to userland. It's infuriating. Can you really not see why this sentiment is so widely shared?
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @Rich_Harris @dmitryshimkin and
I hear you. I'm frustrated as well, but you're ignoring how WC provide massive interop value for teams *today*. Why?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @dmitryshimkin and
Partly because I almost never encounter people (at confs, JS meetups etc) actually using them, partly because I still believe if we'd designed the primitives slightly differently they would have more general utility
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Rich_Harris @dmitryshimkin and
If you want to engage on the later, let's discuss (assuming constructive collaboration; nobody treating folks like idiots who don't care about other's concerns, etc.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @dmitryshimkin and
I appreciate the gesture, but hasn't the ship sailed? It seems hard to imagine that we'd e.g. undo the coupling of encapsulated styles to SD in favour of a declarative mechanism, or eliminate attributeChangedCallback in favour of a unified interface for passing data to components
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Declarative layered on imperative very much possible (and as explained up thread, considered at length) Apple will be the ones to convince re: attribute changed.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @Rich_Harris and
But "unified" is misleading. HTML and SVG elements have attributes *and* properties. We can't pretend they don't.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @Rich_Harris and
We tried a way to unify data passing through DOM hierarchy (MDV); framework community had a *fit*
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 20 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.