W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 00:44:00 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "dglazkov@google.com" <dglazkov@google.com>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EB89980C-3795-41CC-A466-412FB5D516C3@adobe.com>

On Feb 4, 2014, at 4:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> There's no implied commitment here, just the reality that whatever
>>> syntax we choose here is likely to freeze quickly as soon as it's
>>> shipped.
>>> Even if we want to, it will be hard or impossible to change
>>> in the future.
>> That sounds a bit like pre-emptive fait accompli :). Shouldn't a large amount of content depend on this for things to be hard to change? It may be that Google plans to produce such content; or maybe you expects apps in your app store to quickly develop a lot of dependencies on this through libraries or what not? If so, I still think that's your responsibility. (And yes, it's risky)
> I just expect the web to adopt this stuff pretty quickly, and make
> changing it very difficult in a short amount of time.

I hope we can at least agree that 'I just expect' and 'pretty quickly' are 100% subjective. I do not expect things that are only supported in one or two browsers to get adopted anywhere near as quickly and deeply as things that are supported in 4+ browsers. The very small number of people I know who don't work on a browser team and bothered to actually try Polymer all gave up pretty quickly. I certainly can't claim my perception to be representative; but it may at least suggest there exists a range of perception wide enough to make it difficult for you to proceed with mere belief statements.

>>> Lots of Shadow DOM can be tweaked post-shipping, and likely will for
>>> some time as we continue to tweak things based on experience in the
>>> wild and further input from others.  CSS syntax probably can't,
>>> because that's how the world works.
>> This thread suggests there is more to it than syntax. (And for the record I'm fine with ^ and ^^, fwiw; more worried about whether/how component authors can choose what ^^ can see).
> Nope, it's just syntax.

It's just syntax, except for the feedback from Peter, Ted, myself and others, which is about much more than just syntax. 

> ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 00:44:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:18 UTC