Re: webcomponents: <import> instead of <link>

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:21 AM, John J Barton
> <> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
>>> Apparently I wasn't clear enough before.
>>> We shouldn't add dynamically updating imports of components just
>>> because we're choosing to reuse <link>. We add dynamic imports if
>>> there are use cases.
>>> So far no-one has presented any use cases.
>> Sorry if this is out-of-context, but as far as I can tell you are proposing
>> that demand-loading of Web components for Web apps is not a valid use-case
>> for components.
> That's not what I'm proposing. What I'm saying is that unloading of a
> component document is not a use case. I.e. using <link> to point to
> URL A and wait for it to load the components in A. Then change the
> <link> to point to URL B and have it unload the components from A and
> instead load the components in B.
> This is how stylesheets work if you dynamically modify a <link> from
> pointing at A to pointing at B.
> I definitely agree there are use cases for at some point after a
> document has finished loading, loading components from url A, and
> again at a yet later point loading components from URL B.

I think unloading components (unregistering custom elements, to be
precise), is out of questions and never should be on the table. In
fact, we have a separate table for that -- it's in a dark, scary place
with eternal burning fire, where all bad ideas go after they die.


Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 18:04:28 UTC