RE: Please comment: Modular HTML or monolith?

Modular in case we have someone who still overviews the entity when doing so.

- Stefan

-----Original Message-----
From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 6. April 2016 06:29
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: HTML WG (public-html@w3.org) <public-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Please comment: Modular HTML or monolith?

Cc- w3c-ac-forum

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 05:04:36 +0200, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>  
wrote:

>> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>> TL;DR: Should we move the content of specs like Shadow DOM and Custom  
>> Elements into HTML, or continue with the goal of more modular  
>> specifications?
>
> (CCing / moving this to the AC Forum because I am broadening the topic  
> to charter discussion)

You should feel free to take messages here to other fora to discuss other  
topics, or even to raise new threads here. But please try to minimise  
cross-posting as far as possible.

> I support modularity, especially if done in a way similar to what the  
> CSSWG is doing: one central monolithic bedrock spec (HTML5.x / CSS2.1)  
> and other specs that build upon it, either adding new features, or  
> gradually refining/replacing sections of the bedrock spec.

I believe that our current approach basically aims to achieve that.

The question is whether we should change it, either in general, or for Web  
Components and/or Shadow DOM.

[I'll address the rest of your message, from my perspective, in another  
mail. Which will take longer to write].

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Friday, 8 April 2016 11:13:23 UTC