W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Please comment: Modular HTML or monolith?

From: Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@jquery.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 14:54:38 -0500
Message-Id: <042AD28F-7AA9-4527-A64A-B2102A0FD685@jquery.com>
To: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
We are also very much in favor of modularity assuming the HTML spec becomes an index of sorts where all of the individual module specs are pulled together for discoverability.

Speaking from experience in the jQuery and broader JS space, a lack of discoverability really hurts developers in the long run. Take modularity in the JS space for example. It has been great for better application development and developer workflows. But just look at the number of jQuery plugins or npm modules that solve the same problem or have the exact same functionality. Much of this can be attributed to difficulty finding the modules that already exist and eventually just duplicating the effort to create the same thing again.

So to circle back, we are very supportive of more modularity in HTML specifications to promote easier development and maintenance of the specs as well as easier digestibility of the individual parts of the spec. That said, there must be an index or some sort of "super spec" that pulls all of those modules together and illustrates their interdependencies and interoperability.

Kris Borchers
Executive Director - jQuery Foundation
kris@jquery.com
(781) 369-5779

> On Apr 8, 2016, at 06:12, Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 Saturday, 9 April 2016 19:55:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 9 April 2016 19:55:11 UTC