Re: [w3c/webcomponents] Alternative proposal for closed shadow DOM (#499)

@dylanb
> All of those alternatives are very expensive and could be avoided by simply not implementing a closed flag.

no... I can write it in _open_ mode with closed source licence... And if I choose closed source licence and my component will not meet your need, you still have to move on.. Or do you want to force on me, the author, the licence as well?

> .... the ability to change and see and modify all aspects of the Web page .... is something that has allowed great and valuable innovations to occur...

and has been a plague over the years when trying 3rd party parts somehow not to leek out and the outside not to leak in

> and when we create features that close things off, we are limiting the creative flexibility of the users of those components

which should be solely in control of the author, by licence

can we get back to problem at hands and not make it about author vs. developer, OS vs. closed licencing?
We got to the point, where the only argument against _closed_ is based on "I want to do something, author did not want me to do". Which is mostly not argument at all. It has its real impact in e.g. your accessibility calendar issue, but that is problem of the calendar, not  the problem of _closed_ flag and the theory/reasoning behind it. I can implement whatever poorly and you will have to fix it, and do it with every upgrade, it does not mater whether it is ShadowDOM, piece of ES, library in Pascal, framework in C#... I can make  SD opened and screw up ES implementation of component


---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/499#issuecomment-219083763