Sure, that's fine. Keep it low level. But then WC advocates shouldn't advertise it as a replacement for FWs. It's not a "less JS" solution in that case.
-
-
Replying to @mikesherov @slightlylate and
I agree it's not a replacement for FWs. It's a primitive. It does also open up new approaches FWs could take. What I want to see are more support by FW authors to explore the spec, build on this capability don't push it away because it doesn't do everything today.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BenDelarre @mikesherov and
If the primitives really meant that framework authors could make their frameworks faster or smaller without sacrificing the value those FWs provide, the React, Vue and Svelte teams would be tripping over themselves to do so. We've explored them. They don't.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Rich_Harris @BenDelarre and
I guess the main goal is interoperability between frameworks, not making frameworks faster or smaller.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dmitryshimkin @Rich_Harris and
Describe how it creates interop: The answer is "because it's in the platform". So it's in the platform to create interop, and it creates interop by being the platform WC advocates then extend this: "WC act like builtins for interop" to which FW folk say "builtins have a bad api"
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mikesherov @Rich_Harris and
It allows to re-use components across various projects that are using different frameworks with zero effort. The only condition is that the authoring framework should support WC as a compilation target.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dmitryshimkin @mikesherov and
Right, but shipping multiple FWs on the same page is user-hostile. We need less JS, not more
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Rich_Harris @mikesherov and
Ideally those UI components should be authored with a framework that gives great DX experience and has zero or a small runtime.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dmitryshimkin @Rich_Harris and
Anything that is the platform has zero cost. It's tautological. If WC don't help reduce FW bloat in a meaningful way and if they're not an authoring format, then there's no good argument for them. Now, you can argue they are a good format, etc. but that's the field of play!
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @mikesherov @dmitryshimkin and
Well stated. I'd just offer a small edit to the 'zero cost' bit — relentlessly adding new features to the platform definitely isn't free. It increases the learning curve, makes browsers themselves more complex, and makes a challenger to Chrome's dominance even less likely
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I can get conspiracy theories over on FB; can someone unsubscribe me from this thread?
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @mikesherov and
I'm stating straightforward facts. Not ascribing motivation.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @Rich_Harris and
You can mute the thread :-) only way the graph convo will end.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.