- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 17:51:30 -0700
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- CC: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Domenic Denicola wrote: > Well, but*for explaining the platform* it is just as useless. That is a false idol if it means no intermediate steps that explain some but not all of the platform. > It may be useful independently for authors who wish to protect against interference by people who are afraid of feeling bad, but it is not useful for explaining the platform. > > My personal perspective is that it is already a shame we are on track to have two versions (in some sense) of web components: the existing one, and one that explains the platform. It would be a shame to have a third in between those two, that is unlike the existing one but also does not explain the platform. So I guess along this axis I would strongly prefer "perfect" to "good," I suppose because I think what we have already is "good." Sorry, I'm confused. What do we have now, already, among top browsers that is "good"? Or do you mean prospective stuff? Because among interoperating browsers, AFAIK we do not have any XBL2 or Shadow DOM or other such, after all these years. Could you enumerate the three versions (in any sense) of web components in the worst case you cite above? /be
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 00:51:59 UTC