- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:37:58 -0700
- To: Ashley Gullen <ashley@scirra.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CADC=+jfRi5Or-aKWn2UJyj_fPvR4Ut0fkT4bp7gpdg0dLu59Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Very generally: this is actually why I said way back that a lot of things seem like prollyfills (we hope that's the future) rather than polyfills (it's a done deal) and advocated we make sure it's a future-safe, forward compatible approach. On Dec 15, 2014 4:06 PM, "Ashley Gullen" <ashley@scirra.com> wrote: > > On 15 December 2014 at 19:09, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> >> >> But more to the point, we're not shipping imports because we've gotten feedback from a number of people that imports are not solving the problems they actually need solved. We'd prefer to not ship imports and then need to ship yet another HTML import system that solves those problems. > > > Well, imports work better for us than Javascript modules, for the reasons I gave. The p(r)olyfill is actually pretty decent and not huge, smaller than a lot of module loaders. For such an integral kind of platform feature, if we have a fairly nice polyfill and things are potentially still debatable and there are legit seeming wants that aren't met, why not use it? I hadn't given any feedback because everything looked great with HTML imports and I was simply waiting for it to arrive in browsers. Maybe the process biases feedback towards the negative? I guess you never hear the chorus of "cool, can't wait!" from everyone looking forwards to it? Currently, I agree, some of us are working on that so that we tighten the feedback loop with both positive and negative feedback without overwhelming the system. > > On 15 December 2014 at 19:09, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> >> On 12/15/14, 1:10 PM, Ashley Gullen wrote: >>> >>> Why would modules affect the decision to ship HTML imports? >> >> >> Because the interaction of the various import systems with each other needs to be specified, for one thing. >> >> But more to the point, we're not shipping imports because we've gotten feedback from a number of people that imports are not solving the problems they actually need solved. We'd prefer to not ship imports and then need to ship yet another HTML import system that solves those problems. >> >>> The webcomponents.org <http://webcomponents.org> polyfill for imports >>> has a couple of caveats, so it doesn't look like it's totally equivalent >>> and portable with browsers with native support, like Chrome which has >>> shipped it already. >> >> >> Chrome has shipped a lot of things in this space already. Feel free to mail me privately for my feelings on the matter. chrome shipping something is not sufficient reason to ship something we're pretty sure is deficient, I'm afraid. >> >> -Boris >>
Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 23:38:25 UTC