Well said and 100% correct IMO.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:12 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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%40googl >>>>> egroups.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/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<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/2cbd0bde-d7b6-4c68-acad-026cc30b474e%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/CAHbmOLbPH%3DywkXbbjekd_3%3DUxeVNR%2BTFesdkNHYiG165rgNuiw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
