Re: [webcomponents]: Of weird script elements and Benadryl from Daniel Buchner on 2013-04-16 (public-webapps@w3.org from April to June 2013)

From: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:07:23 -0700
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.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>
Message-ID: <CAHZ6zJGqbyPQALFX1F2=43a++c+tsAbUkCbyL9oB+BT4rn8LFQ@mail.gmail.com>

One thing I've heard from many of our in-house developers, is that they
prefer the imperative syntax, with one caveat: we provide an easy way to
allow components import/require/rely-upon other components. This could
obviously be done using ES6 Modules, but is there anything we can do to
address that use case for the web of today?

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>wrote:

> 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 22:08:21 UTC