W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-nextweb@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [webcomponents] Auto-creating shadow DOM for custom elements

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:20:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CADC=+jcDq8=fGmOsx8bZkKyEqZVvD9qSfFtB+4rxsWj57j6ZpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-nextweb@w3.org
+public-nextweb _ i encourage folks there to check out
public-webapps@w3.orgas this conversation is deep and multi-forked and
I am late to the party.

On Dec 7, 2013 4:44 PM, "Brendan Eich" <brendan@secure.meer.net> wrote:
> What does polymer do? Cows are already treading paths.
> I still smell a chance to do better out of the gate (gave, thanks
autospellcheck! lol). Call me picky. Knee-jerking about scenario solving (I
think I taught Yehuda that one) doesn't help. Particular response, please.
> /be

I think the most important part is to first ensure that we -can- explain
the magic with core apis even if they are initially saltier than we'd all
like.  When reasonable opportunities present themselves to improve
developer ergonomics, we should take them - it doesn't preclude other
opportunities for better flowers to bloom.

The issues in this specific case in my mind surround the observation that
it feels like it is attempting to bind several layers together which are in
various states of "done" and conceptually what we have is more like a
squirrel path than a cow path on this piece.  Without bindings or some kind
of  pattern for solving those use cases, template is a less thing - and i
think we are far from that.    Templates aren't necessary for a useful
document.register().  Shadow DOM isn't either but it's more obvious where
the connections are and it seems considerably more stable.  There also
isn't necessarily a 1:1 relationship of component to template, so we have
to be careful there lest we add confusion.  Is this really a ShadowHost?

I am not actually sure that the initial message in this thread really needs
to have anything particular to the template element though, it looks like
the optional third argument could be any Node - and that does actually seem
to describe a useful and common pattern which we could easily explain in
existing terms and it might be fruitful to think about that.
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 15:21:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:54 UTC