I agree with Trey here. Even with all of that access, you'd still need a way to tell the system that you're making a new element type. WC let you express that. It's literally just telling the parser to instantiate a class. the class can do whatever.
-
-
Replying to @rob_dodson @treshugart and
It can do whatever, originally asynchronously, and nobody considered that a problem for EWM. More concerningly, you're forced to buy into the WC framework's DOM isolation story in order to get the benefits of CSS isolation.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @wycats @rob_dodson and
In practice, all frameworks have alternative DOM isolation stories than WC but badly want CSS isolation. In practice frameworks want to intercept "anytime someone clicks a link on the page" even if using Shadow DOM for CSS isolation.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @wycats @rob_dodson and
That doesn't mean frameworks are breaking DOM isolation. It means they offer a different isolation paradigm (based on declarative constructs and userspace components) for DOM but can't always accomplish that for CSS (because of light DOM leakage)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @rob_dodson and
And frameworks use the non-isolated DOM as a substrate to building isolation paradigms on top. This is all fine but the style/event conflation set frameworks back years from using Shadow DOM for style isolation. Makes me sad.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @treshugart and
There's a good thread where a member of the shadow dom team tried to explain why style isolation is coupled to DOM isolation. Let me try to dig that up...
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rob_dodson @wycats and
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/531#issuecomment-341609348 … I don't actually work on the rendering engine so I can't argue the validity of his point. But wanted to share the information.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @rob_dodson @wycats and
Meh. Style isolation is nice but not the reason the web is trailing in UX.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @sebmarkbage @wycats and
I think you hit on it earlier. Exposing lower level APIs in a way that doesn't mess up the security sandbox is tricky. But folks are working on it, just maybe not as fast as we'd all like :)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @rob_dodson @sebmarkbage and
In practice, the speed of the work is really slow and people can't ever help themselves from trying to avoid footguns at the same time. New primitives should expose the low level and leave ergonomics to libs using the primitives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If you try to build ergonomic primitives you go slow and don't expose the needed stuff to frameworks anyway. Worst of both worlds.
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.