- From: cstavaru <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 13:05:46 -0800
- To: WICG/webcomponents <webcomponents@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <WICG/webcomponents/issues/909/1802672270@github.com>
Imagine a car manufacturer building a new car. It has a myriad of 3rd party suppliers: headlight suppliers, instrument cluster suppliers, body panel suppliers, etc. How does the car get a cohesive visual design, such that all its components are following the approved car design ? The car manufacturer tells each component supplier how its supplied component must look for this specific car. On the other hand, the 3rd party component manufacturers can indeed "dictate" to the car manufacturers how their components should be interacted with. And this is something that car manufacturers are fine with, they can accomodate it. But they can not accomodate for the 3rd party component suppliers to also dictate the visual design because it this would be the case, the cars would look like Frankensteins. So, for the real-world components, visual design and functionality are handled using different paradigms. The functionality is enforced from the bottom up, while the visual design is enforced from the top down. In my opinion, this should also be how web components work. There is nothing wrong with a separate paradigm for visual design. It doesn't break any encapsulation rules, it's just the natural thing to do. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/909#issuecomment-1802672270 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <WICG/webcomponents/issues/909/1802672270@github.com>
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2023 21:05:52 UTC