- From: Sandro Paganotti <sandro.paganotti@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:56:00 +0000
- To: Bobby Mozumder <mozumder@futureclaw.com>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Bobby Mozumder <mozumder@futureclaw.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Sandro Paganotti <sandro.paganotti@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> well, yes; but once it's done accordingly to the behaviour required it > could be released and then used by everybody. So it is just a matter of > creating a new catalog of components that anyone can import using the html > import. In my view it would be something really close to your initial > implementation proposal: > > <article is='json-enhanced' remote-node=" > http://apiname/endpoint.json:propertyname"></article> > > -sandro. > > > I think that's what being done right now, where everybody defines expected > behavior of elements and create a catalog of components that anyone can > import. We call that the "web browser" and that's why we're here. =^D > +1; my point is: in this case I don't think it's necessary to move this solution into a native browser implementation. In my opinion the browser should provide tools developers can use to built web experiences. If I have to try to imagine a solution complex enough even only to handle some uses cases (eg: dealing with network problems, missing properties, etc..) it would look much like a small framework than a simple tool and, in my opinion, frameworks should be kept in a JS domain, so everyone can pick the one he like without having to deal with something already into the browser. -sandro. > > -bobby > --- > Bobby Mozumder > *Editor-in-Chief* > FutureClaw Magazine > mozumder@futureclaw.com > +1-240-745-5287 > www.futureclaw.com > twitter.com/futureclaw <https://www.twitter.com/futureclaw> > www.linkedin.com/in/mozumder > >
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 14:57:00 UTC