Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] [WebComponents] Custom state pseudo class (#428)

> Thus far HTML has needed
>
> in general folks mostly use

Hm, this language indicates preservation of the status quo - the limited tools that have been historically provided in the platform.

I think new standards discussions should be about coming up with something for the future, and should be at least somewhat influenced by what tools real-world developers use when building web apps of non-insignificant complexity (take hints from real-world usage of frameworks like Lit, Svelte, React, Vue.js, etc. and how they treat the concept of "state").

If the argument is supposed to be to "use the platform", then the platform should provide compelling tools.

---

I guess I'm saying pretty much the same thing as @plinss is mentioning above too:

> The ergonomics of that API will just get weird and non-standard. We have enough of those, let's not add more.
>
> The goal here is to be able to *extend* HTML, right?

I suppose there is something to be said for not releasing a hamstrung first version.

Although if there would be near-future concrete plans for a more capable v2 right away from the start (a v2 like Tab mentioned as a response to [my comment](https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/738#issuecomment-539506432)), then I guess that sounds ok as well.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/428#issuecomment-540975847