- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:02:02 -0700
- To: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
- Cc: John J Barton <johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com>, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, Dave Herman <dherman@mozilla.com>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com> wrote: > "I am going to offer a cop-out option: maybe we simply don't offer > imperative syntax as part of the spec?" > > Why would we do this if the imperative syntax is "solid", "nicely > compatible", and relatively uncontentious? Did you mean to say declarative? DERP. Yes, thank you Daniel. I mean to say: I am going to offer a cop-out option: maybe we simply don't offer DECLARATIVE syntax as part of the spec? Should we let libraries/frameworks build their own custom elements (with opinion and flair) to implement declarative syntax systems? :DG<
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 22:02:30 UTC