Re: Shadow DOM: Hat and Cat -- if that's your real name.



On 2/4/14 1:28 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>* Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
>>On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Sylvain Galineau
>><galineau@adobe.com>wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to ship it once, wait for consensus. If you want to ship it
>>> now, be ready to change it.
>>
>>Totally agree with this.
>
>It is not unusual for browser vendors to make committments that they
>will update experimental implementations to conform to the results of
>the Standards process, even if that means making breaking changes.

Indeed.

>
>Do you mean that Google makes such a committment and will not oppose
>changes requested prior to a W3C Call for Implementations because it
>"shipped" something already?

All implementors are prone to using the 'this has already shipped'
argument. It comes with the territory. The awkward bit - on my end, at
least - is that it *sounds* like Google is asking the WG to commit to
whatever resolution comes out of this discussion and not re-visit it later.

Even if there was consensus on how to resolve this - which there does not
really seem to be - I'm not sure the WG should or even could make this
kind of commitment to Google at the moment. This is a very large feature;
until there exists cross-browser implementation experience and a
well-reviewed call for implementation, whatever shadow DOM implementation
Google wants to ship in the very near future should entirely be Google's
decision, imo. If you can't wait to ship, own it.

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 22:42:32 UTC