+ajo, Any inputs on the necessity of the HTML Import polyfill after vulcanization?
On Friday, 27 March 2015 22:16:39 UTC+5:30, AJ Ortega wrote: > > Custom element upgrades aren't always synchronous. Even w/ vulcanization, > you'll still want to wait for WebComponentsReady. > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Kiran Rao <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> @rajsite, >> >> In my experiments, I found that WebComponentsReady is still required - >> that's how you know that your custom element has been registered and is >> safe to interact with. However, I had other issues related to Template not >> being available (if I eliminate the HTML Imports polyfill that is). Check >> out the bug I referred to in my response to Rob above for more details. >> >> >> On Friday, 27 March 2015 08:09:47 UTC+5:30, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> It also seems that HTML Imports use the WebComponentsReady event due to >>> the polyfill limitation of not being able to block on scripts in the main >>> page during imports: http://webcomponents.org/polyfills/html-imports/ >>> >>> 1. Does that mean if we vulcanize that relying on WebComponentsReady is >>> unnecessary? >>> >>> 2. Following that, if Polymer and Polymer element registrations are >>> being loaded synchronously due to vulcanization does that mean we also do >>> not need to wait for polymer-ready assuming the DOM is ready? >>> >>> 3. The million dollar question: With vulcanization does that mean I can >>> switch back to a "VanillaJS" way of detecting DOM ready state such as >>> waiting for DOMContentLoaded? >>> >>> 4. I'm having difficulty finding documentation to back this up but was >>> the goal for native web components (utilizing HTML Imports, Shadow DOM, >>> Custom Elements, HTML Templates, the works!) to expect that all web >>> components (that don't rely on programmatic lazy importing) are registered >>> and upgraded for DOMContentLoaded? >>> >>> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 2:40:54 PM UTC-5, Rob Dodson wrote: >>>> >>>> +ajo >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Kiran Rao <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> @Rob, >>>>> >>>>> I wonder whether my assumption is correct in the first place. It would >>>>> be good to get the folks developing the core polyfills to weigh in. See >>>>> also this bug >>>>> <https://github.com/webcomponents/webcomponentsjs/issues/45> on >>>>> webcomponentsjs repo. >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, 1 March 2015 01:45:02 UTC+5:30, Rob Dodson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Good question. I know that elements have access to Polymer.import and >>>>>> may potentially lazy load more elements this way. +dfreedman do you know >>>>>> if >>>>>> any polymer elements (or polymer itself) take advantage of >>>>>> Polymer.import >>>>>> at any point? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Kiran Rao <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It looks like the HTML Import polyfill is redundant if vulcanize is >>>>>>> used to either inline or otherwise squash all the custom elements into >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> single script. Essentially, HTML imports are replaced with a script >>>>>>> import. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this assessment correct? Am I missing something here? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I tried creating a version of webcomponents-lite.js minus the HTML >>>>>>> imports and the size went further down to ~16 KB minified (~5.6KB >>>>>>> gzipped). >>>>>>> For comparison, webcomponents-lite is ~28KB minified (~9KB gzipped). >>>>>>> If HTML imports are truly redundant after vulcanizing, maybe we >>>>>>> could request inclusion of a webcomponents-feather version of the >>>>>>> polyfills >>>>>>> that include only Custom Elements and Templates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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/bef0c60d-a49d- >>>>>>> 4043-83c8-25727aff8408%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/bef0c60d-a49d-4043-83c8-25727aff8408%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/9b71c215-d4e6-4d74-8a91-ce63de27a554% >>>>> 40googlegroups.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/9b71c215-d4e6-4d74-8a91-ce63de27a554%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> > > > -- > AJ Ortega | Software Engineer | [email protected] <javascript:> | > 626-872-5064 > 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/137a7696-8fe1-410c-b1ec-91ef4aa22fe0%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
