re: point no. 2 This is already the case today. Here's a screenshot of the markup generated by gmail <http://html5-demos.appspot.com/static/cds2013/index.html#19>. That code is the byproduct of some framework just spitting out DOM as a substrate. So they're already sort of obfuscating but hopefully you wouldn't need to spew out all of that DOM if whatever they were building was just encapsulated in Shadow DOM and wrapped in a Custom Element.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:15 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > My opinion on Web Components has two sides. > > 1. HTML is about being accessible to *everyone* and as a self-taught > programmer I believe the div soup is inaccessible to people who are > interested in how a website works (Don't tell me you haven't been there > before. I've learned so many things from Cmd+Opt+U) or even new coworkers > who have to an encyclopedia and an expert to understand how a site is laid > out before he can do anything, just look at this page. d > *iv>div>div...forever...* > > 2. I'm worried devs will make tags that totally obfuscate their code for > performance gains or to make it unreadable to outsiders (opposite of an > open web see #1 above). Imagine if Google was filled with tags along the > lines of <g-weibvlqbeqbiubqkjdbiuqbek> that only Google can understand. > This has serious ramifications beyond my programmer-friendly point in terms > of accessibility, SEO , etc. Its important to remember that HTML should be > readable and comprhenible without a user-agent stylesheet hiding the tags > and stuff. > > > On Sunday, October 20, 2013 10:57:41 AM UTC-5, Rob Dodson wrote: >> >> I think the most frequent gripe I hear about Web Components is that they >> look like XML and that totally freaks people out. I can definitely imagine >> my own horror if I were to open up a client project and top to bottom was >> all custom elements that I knew nothing about. >> >> My own opinion is that they're almost like jQuery plugins. I don't see >> much difference in: >> >> <div class="fancy-dropdown"></div> >> $('.fancy-dropdown').dropdown(); >> >> and >> >> <fancy-dropdown></fancy-dropdown> >> >> and just like jQuery plugins, they're great if used in moderation but >> *horrible* if they constitute the bulk of your site. I realize that's >> not a very accurate analogy but I think it gets at my main point which is >> "If it does something mysterious then don't overuse it." >> >> I figure in time some custom elements might become so commonplace that >> they achieve the same level of mindshare as seeing $ or .btn does today. >> Bootstrap is a good example. If I opened a document and saw <twbs-btn> then >> I could say "Oh! I know how Bootstrap buttons work. OK, moving on...". So >> my hope is that the good stuff will rise to the top and the best practice >> will be "liberally use the good stuff, but go easy on the esoteric or >> lesser known elements." >> >> Does that make sense? What do you guys think? >> >> >> 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/40653bc6-0d68-47a0-90e9-7d484d4958f4%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/40653bc6-0d68-47a0-90e9-7d484d4958f4%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > 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/CAJj5OwCy%3DbcvJrDMouwvCDvvURLo6eizQe7KXnNKt4SkqaMyuw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
