Re: HTML imports in Firefox

On 15 December 2014 at 19:09, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> But more to the point, we're not shipping imports because we've gotten
> feedback from a number of people that imports are not solving the problems
> they actually need solved.  We'd prefer to not ship imports and then need
> to ship yet another HTML import system that solves those problems.
>

Well, imports work better for us than Javascript modules, for the reasons I
gave. I hadn't given any feedback because everything looked great with HTML
imports and I was simply waiting for it to arrive in browsers. Maybe the
process biases feedback towards the negative? I guess you never hear the
chorus of "cool, can't wait!" from everyone looking forwards to it?


On 15 December 2014 at 19:09, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On 12/15/14, 1:10 PM, Ashley Gullen wrote:
>
>> Why would modules affect the decision to ship HTML imports?
>>
>
> Because the interaction of the various import systems with each other
> needs to be specified, for one thing.
>
> But more to the point, we're not shipping imports because we've gotten
> feedback from a number of people that imports are not solving the problems
> they actually need solved.  We'd prefer to not ship imports and then need
> to ship yet another HTML import system that solves those problems.
>
>  The webcomponents.org <http://webcomponents.org> polyfill for imports
>> has a couple of caveats, so it doesn't look like it's totally equivalent
>> and portable with browsers with native support, like Chrome which has
>> shipped it already.
>>
>
> Chrome has shipped a lot of things in this space already.  Feel free to
> mail me privately for my feelings on the matter.  chrome shipping something
> is not sufficient reason to ship something we're pretty sure is deficient,
> I'm afraid.
>
> -Boris
>
>