W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Minimum viable custom elements

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:39:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78hrVGfxh1W-Fw-HeP3as84t4Q0dqxuWe_E+=aNBega+Gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote:
> Why is "Not having identity at creation-time is currently a mismatch with
> the rest of the platform" a problem? Why does it all have to be consistent
> across the board? Are there any other platform objects that are created by
> HTML parser or a similar device?

Domenic explained how we could potentially reconcile this, but just to be clear.

Whenever the browser platform deviates from the norm (e.g. Java-esque
DOM API), there's considerable frustration in the community. And it is
long-lasting. E.g. I still get complaints about APIs I'm maintaining
the standard for that are now fifteen years old. (And I didn't even
design!)

That tells me that developer ergonomics are important and what we
deploy will last a long time. Assuming we deploy it across browsers.

Now if the dominant subclass pattern is not a two-stage process with a
custom upgrade method the DOM will continue to be odd. We may have to
accept this, but I have the feeling that the alternatives have not
been given due consideration. I think we owe it to Yehuda and Ryosuke
and others to carefully weigh the alternatives.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 13:39:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:25 UTC