- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:16:14 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com, Dimitris Michalakos <dimitris@visionmobile.com>, "public-web-mobile@w3.org" <public-web-mobile@w3.org>
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > > > So if you've picked library A and need a component x of library B, you're either bound to re-implement it, or will end up bloating your app by adding both libs to it (plus you might bump into weird compat issues). > > > > > > > > > Yeah, can see that happening. But, at the same time, it’s should be seen as a good thing that developers have a great deal of choice in what frameworks they use to build their apps. This is at least what we want with regards to the extensible web manifesto. > > If you look at the two most popular trends in WebDev of the last decade (Rails and node.js) you'll see that the first one was strongly opinionated about reducing choice (convention over configuration) and the second one adamant about building highly composable components through standardizing on the right set of primitives. > > > > Choice is good as long as it doesn't pigeonhole you. > On the platform, we’ve generally agreed to take the primitives approach. This should hopefully make it easier to identify if there are any UI primitives missing (when compared to those provided natively). I think that’s the most interesting thing that would be worth while exploring. Absolutely. --tobie
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 22:14:39 UTC