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

On Feb 4, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> 
> 
> As it is it is behind a flag and we have polymer - but shadow dom in particular is tricky to p(r)ollyfill and maybe the most enabling underlying feature the platform has seen in a long time.  You can doubt or disagree, but I think odds are pretty good that we're going to see substantial enough uptake fast that no one is gonna seriously have the appetite to change once released out from behind the flag.  

Given fast adoption we should expect very little appetite for most kinds of changes, not just the syntax of a couple of selectors.


> It seems to me it's easier/safer to use a name and iterate than it is to add a new combinator as those are limited -and- form the really abstract bits dev have to learn with no kind of mnemonic.  A short concise syntax might be desirable, but not ultimately necessary to rush.  It just feels more realistic to give them names for now and iterate.  Worst case there is we wind up with a less than optimal pseudo-element name as legacy, which,  honestly probably isn't that big a deal.

I don't really care about the exact syntax; the combinator vs. pseudo debate is a recurring one though. The main reason people prefer a name sounds largely cosmetic to me i.e. that combinators are so cryptic-looking, while Tab's usability argument is also reasonable. So I'll ask the dumb question: any reason we couldn't use mnemonics or even words for future combinators? We'd presumably still need to agree on a single character prefix to disambiguate these names from element names but what are the cons? 

Still doesn't answer the overall encapsulation issue but here is to moar bikeshed.

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 02:45:45 UTC