Sorry for the delay in responding. I don't have anything in *particular *to say to your email, other than that it is insightful and gives me a lot to mull over. Thanks for sharing!
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Jan Miksovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Alex: No flippancy heard on this end. You guys are doing great at > encouraging and listening to community feedback. > > I did want to follow up on Karl's point about the underlying web standards > not being finished. Given Polymer's specific mission, I argue that it's in > the industry's best interests for the completion state of those standards > to *not* be a criteria for defining a Polymer 1.0 milestone. > > As I see it, Polymer's reason for existence is to provide a "browser of > the future". I think I've heard Google use some characterization like that > in the past. By adopting Polymer, I can pretend that all of my users are > running a browser that doesn't exist yet. That virtual browser implements > standards that are so new, no native implementation exists. And, in some > cases, the standards themselves are still being revised and debated. > > The clever thing about the way Polymer's been defined is that it's a > general purpose strategy for tackling any new polyfillable web technology, > not just web components. The Pointer Events and Web Animations specs, for > example, don't seem like critical pieces of an initial web components > platform; they're simply new interesting web technologies that can be > polyfilled the same way. It seems reasonable to conclude that more > technologies will be proposed in the future which can be polyfilled that > way too. That is, Polymer will *always* include features based on specs > that have not yet closed. > > So I'm hoping an approach to versioning Polymer will accommodate the fact > that it polyfills support for specs that have not yet closed. I think it's > fine for there to be some Polymer version/spec matrix that indicates: > "Polymer version *N* implements this set of specs, which are in the > following states. Polymer *N*+1 implements this larger set of specs; some > more are closed, the newest specs are still being worked on." > > I think there's another concession that needs to be made in defining > versions for Polymer, which is limiting the guarantee of support for all > future releases of the supported browsers. Often a 1.0+ version number > implies indefinite customer support and bug fixing on behalf of the product > creator. Given the nature of Polymer, I think such an expectation may be > unfair. > > Suppose Polymer version 1.0 supports IE 10/11. Perhaps that version also > works on IE 12, but let's imagine something lands in IE 13 that breaks > Polymer 1.0 sites. I think it's acceptable to tell the Polymer 1.0 site > that they need to upgrade the (two year-old) version of Polymer they're > using. In other words, the support bargain between Polymer and the site > using it could be: "If you want to exist in the world of auto-upgrade > browsers, you yourself may occasionally need to upgrade your code." I think > many small sites get written and then essentially left alone in perpetuity. > If those sites want some guarantee they will work forever, they should wait > for native implementations in all mainstream browsers. The browser > manufacturers are generally very careful to avoid breaking old code. But > the Polymer collective shouldn't be responsible for guaranteeing indefinite > compatibility, because the ground can shift underneath them. If an > organization is willing to invest in keeping their site up to date, then > should feel comfortable using Polymer. The converse is also true: a > organization that is unwilling to keep their site up to date should not use > Polymer. > > In short, I'd be willing to accept a Polymer 1.0 that include provisos: > "Polymer 1.0 includes support for the following standards as of this date, > which are in the following stages of completion. Polymer 1.0 works on the > following specific browser versions today. It is designed to work on those > browsers as they auto-upgrade, but there exists a possibility that a future > browser release may break code depending on Polymer 1.0, and require you to > upgrade the version of Polymer you are using." > > On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:19:59 AM UTC-8, komoroske wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Jan Miksovsky <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Alex: I think it'd be great if Google could shoot for announcing that >>>>> Polymer has reached 1.0 at Google I/O this year. Or, if not then, then to >>>>> at least publish a roadmap to 1.0. That would be a huge help in promoting >>>>> this to clients. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I spend a lot of time thinking carefully about this kind of thing. :-) >>>> >>> >>> No doubt! I'm only trying to help reinforce the message that outside >>> parties are eager to promote web components and Polymer, and that a 1.0 >>> version number will make that much easier. Thanks for listening! >>> >> >> I just realized that my answer could have come across at flippant, which >> was not my intention. One of the things that excites me most about Polymer >> (and web components in general) is how folks from the community--like >> you!--have taken such an active role in evangelizing to developers. As >> always, your analysis and insight are very valuable. >> >>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Polymer" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>> msgid/polymer-dev/7886e7bd-9990-4887-ae43-896edced9d7c% >>> 40googlegroups.com. >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Polymer" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/15033339-d8e0-40b6-8ee8-f9fdc749b867%40googlegroups.com > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAPwaZpXMekSQJdopYarMuX7XojB0BNRNKa8y5fbpBeSkcRFpHw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
