To the notion that the OP and others brought up regarding the desire for people to 'not use Web Components to make the whole site'... isn't that the point? Turning the entire application into granular, reusable, well encapsulated components that can be easily composed into larger specialized components in a declarative manner is pretty much the whole idea here. For me, that's been the promise of the web platform all along, and the great frameworks embrace this (Enyo, Facebook React, Polymer, X-tags). Markup is a natural expression layer for this compositional way of working. Enyo achieves their declarative composition with JSON mixed into the component's imperative declaration, and that's fine too, but the beauty of using markup is that you can easily embed and compose at the document level. That's HUGE! Please don't view that as even remotely a negative. Being able to compose semantic markup (that comes with rich functionality) at the document level brings clarity to the web development process. It brings the expression of what you want the app to do closer to the implementation of making it happen.
Not only do I think people should be embracing this, I can attest to the power of doing so. Before Web Components was a glean in the collective eyes of the W3C, I have been using one widget/component based framework or the other, often writing my own (https://github.com/theVolary/feather). Once you get practiced in thinking through how to break the application up into small chunks of compose-able functionality, you will be pleasantly surprised at just how often you get to reuse your components in contexts other than the one you initial created it for. It also becomes a heck of a lot easier to re-organize things when requirements change. There is nothing wrong with markup, nor with using a component based approach to create the entire application. On Friday, April 25, 2014 1:35:22 PM UTC-5, Rob Dodson wrote: > > You can look at the content of an import using the dev tools > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Hey all, great discussion! I totally agree with Patrick's Point #2 >> I learnt more from viewing source of how a big website implements cool >> effects than reading tutorials on the internet. Is it possible that the >> HTML imports being used can be viewed as well? >> >> >> >> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 11:24:03 PM UTC+5:30, Rob Dodson wrote: >> >>> 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] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/a9e3c6c4-813e-4f90-846b-784bfdf73da6%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/a9e3c6c4-813e-4f90-846b-784bfdf73da6%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/2cbd0bde-d7b6-4c68-acad-026cc30b474e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
