- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:49:31 +0200
- To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
- Cc: Justin Fagnani <justinfagnani@google.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Erik Bryn <erik@erikbryn.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote: > One thing that worries me about the `distribute` callback approach (a.k.a. Anne's approach) is that it bakes distribution algorithm into the platform without us having thoroughly studied how subclassing will be done upfront. Agreed. Dimitri saying these are largely orthogonal makes me hopeful, but I would prefer to see a strawman API for it before fully committing to the distribute() design on my gist. > Mozilla tried to solve this problem with XBL, and they seem to think what they have isn't really great. Actually, I think that we found we needed something. What was originally in the Shadow DOM specification was sufficient for our needs I believe, but got removed... > In that regard, the first approach w/o distribution has an advantage of letting Web developer experiment with the bare minimum and try out which distribution algorithms and mechanisms work best. Except that you don't have a clear story for how to move to a declarative syntax later on. And redistribution seems somewhat essential as it mostly depends on where you put your host element whether you're subject to it. Making it immaterial where you put your host element seems important. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2015 12:49:55 UTC