Hi Arthur, thanks a lot for your detailed answer.
Am Dienstag, 12. September 2017 22:41:40 UTC+2 schrieb arthure: > > Hi Jeorn, > > Sorry, I missed the original message over the weekend. > > To answer your questions: yes, there's a lot of interest in a declarative > templates (a.k.a., "writing HTML in HTML"). Many of the team members feel > the same way you do. We'd love to see a solution—ideally a standards-based > solution that doesn't require a build step. There is currently a standards > discussion around "HTML modules", but it's somewhat unclear how that will > play out. The minimal case would _only_ allow you to define HTML in an HTML > module. A more elaborate version would allow script to be embedded in the > module, as well, allowing single-file components like we have in Polymer 2. > It's a relief to hear that i'm not alone with my point of view. I've been waiting for such a solution to come along and it would be a nightmare if that gets dropped again. Btw, is there any resource where to follow the W3C discussions? I wasn't able to find anything like a community group or something. > > But right now, we don't have a standard way to import HTML. What we have > is a standard way to import JS, in the form ES6 modules. This is a case > where our desire to have declarative elements is at odds with our desire to > produce standards-based solutions—ideally ones that don't require a build > step. > Means that HTML imports don't have a good standing? Heard rumors that some of the WG members don't want to follow that road though i personally find them very elegant. But i know how demanding and long-winding discussions about standards can be (been there before). At least it seems there's still hope that a standards-based, declarative approach will be possible sometime in the future. > > The Polymer 3 preview is a minimal viable version of Polymer in ES6 > modules. In the short term, any HTML-in-HTML solution is going to require a > polyfill or build step, since HTML modules aren't defined yet. > > As far as the Bower => yarn transition, that's forced on us by the > deprecation of Bower. We've had many, many requests to make Polymer > available through the npm registry even before Bower was deprecated. It's > also the dominant package registry and so it was the logical choice for us. > The tools team has been thinking very long and hard about how to transition > to the npm registry, and until yarn came along, they couldn't see a way > clear to do it without building another, custom tool to manage > webcomponents-via-npm. I realize that a new tool is always a pain, but just > to be clear—this particular change wasn't made without a fair amount of > thought. And we'll be continuing to work with the community to work out the > details of this story. > Thanks for this insight into your discussions. Appreciate that. Also i'm very pleased to hear that you guys don't take the tools question easy. In the light of the bower deprecation the change makes absolutely sense. > > Hope that helps a little bit. > > If you haven't read it, we also go into the rationale behind this change > in a previous blog post: > https://www.polymer-project.org/blog/2017-08-22-npm-modules.html > > Finally, I'd encourage you to join the discussion on Slack > <https://polymer-slack.herokuapp.com/>. > I've already joined Slack ;) Thanks again. Best, Joern > > Cheers, > Arthur > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Joern Turner <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Really? Nobody? >> >> Is this the wrong place to ask/discuss design questions or am i asking >> too much at once? Nobody else concerned about such questions? I would be >> really thankful if anybody could point me to the right location to ask such >> questions. >> >> Again - i'm an enthusiastic user of Polymer 2 and do quite a lot of >> applications with it but i'd like to learn about where actually Polymer >> project is heading and to unserstand the choices. Otherwise it's getting >> very hard to commit to it and to see if it's still a fit to my needs. >> >> Any comments welcome. >> >> -Joern >> >> Am Freitag, 8. September 2017 13:17:12 UTC+2 schrieb Joern Turner: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> just read the blog article " >>> Hands-on with the Polymer 3.0 preview" >>> To start with: i'm a huge fan of Polymer and trying to push it whereever >>> i can in our projects. I appreciate the hard work of all developers of that >>> fantastic project. >>> >>> >>> In that light please allow me some criticism: >>> >>> >>> Seems that Polymer 3 is bringing another toolchain with it again (yarn). >>> Polymer tools are fine and you want them for productivity. I'm not opposed >>> to learn new things when they bring significant value. However having to >>> learn a new way of doing things with every major release is also a burden >>> for each Polymer user that doesn't eat every newest tool for breakfast. - >>> would be great if you guys give it a thought next time. >>> >>> But now for the important things: >>> >>> >>> i can live with the removal of link imports though i personally liked >>> them but another syntax does equally well here. >>> >>> >>> But i'm kind of shocked by the prospect that Polymer 3 seems to drop >>> declarative templates in favor of string jungle. Imagining to build >>> complex templates as strings gives me a shiver and makes me doubt about all >>> the work i put into Polymer 2 apps now. >>> >>> >>> IMO HTML templates are one major selling point for me to work with >>> Polymer (and to convince others of the innovation Polymer brings). I don't >>> want to imagine bulding complex templates with strings. >>> >>> >>> Furthermore - turning the representation into a pure javascript one does >>> harm the component metaphor IMHO. A compoment (of course my view of things) >>> is built on-top of a custom HTML Element. As such it's natural that a web >>> component is a html snippet. I always especially liked that about Polymer. >>> And wasn't there something like "everything is an element" slogan? Is that >>> deprecated? Sorry but representing an element as a ES6 module doesn't feel >>> like the 'next generation' but more like 'yet another JS framework'. >>> Always speaking for myself - but this is a big step backward. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry if my complaint directs in the wrong direction - i don't follow >>> the W3C Web Component group, Apologies in that case. >>> >>> >>> As i doubt that my personal opinion will influence the flow of things >>> here's my question: will there be any way to work with declarative >>> templates in the longer term? Maybe as an option? >>> >>> >>> What about CSS and ES6 modules? No example of that in the blog post? >>> >>> >>> Lots of questions and complaints i know but i would really appreciate >>> your opinions/comments. >>> >>> >>> Joern >>> >> 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/3d64dcb3-b708-4bb3-82b3-104a0fba1b05%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/3d64dcb3-b708-4bb3-82b3-104a0fba1b05%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/cea24ec2-cab4-4376-95ad-7548ba890d78%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
