W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Fallout of non-encapsulated shadow trees

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 17:51:30 -0700
Message-ID: <53B35792.5060503@secure.meer.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:26 UTC