Re: [webcomponents] Standard Use Case (Was Auto-creating shadow DOM for custom elements)

On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Matthew McNulty <mmcnulty@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not wont to try to summarize it here, since he said it already better there. Perhaps the short version is: nobody knows what the 'standard use case' is yet.
>> 
>> How is that possible given we've already spent 2+ years on the whole web components effort?
> 
> I don't want to start a word game here
> 
> Really? Because that is exactly what you are doing. This is the equivalent of "no offense, but..." It's disingenuous to put it mildly. 

I'm sorry if I offended you but I never intend to play a word game since it's not a productive use of my time.  I do admit that I never word things nicely.  I'm not a pleasant person to talk with.  I'm sorry.

> but if it's really true that we don't know what web components' the primary/standard use case is, then we have a much bigger issue here.
> 
> And here's where you start the word game, by adding words and subtly changing the definition from what was obviously intended, and then fighting against your new straw man. 

That was definitely not my intention.

> You know exactly what was meant by what Scott said.

No, I don't.

> How developers and the wider ecosystem of the web will precisely use the primitives provided by the platform and the patterns that then emerge are unknown at best at this early stage.

Could you elaborate more on what you mean by this?

> We know what use cases we are trying to solve, and so do you.

Could you give me pointers to the exact list of use case you have?

> By providing the lowest-level primitives possible, we're opening the door to use cases we haven't even considered. This is A Good Thing.

No. That's not a use case.

- R. Niwa