Hi Arthur, thanks a lot for that. Wil study it. What a pitty that the simple solutions rarely make the race.
Thanks, Joern Am Donnerstag, 14. September 2017 01:56:55 UTC+2 schrieb arthure: > > Hi Joern, > > Yes, HTML imports as a spec is essentially dead. No other browser is > likely to implement it. > > Here's a link to one of the ongoing discussions on HTML modules, a > possible replacement for HTML imports. > > https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/645 > > Thanks, > Arthur > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Joern Turner <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> 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]> >>> 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]. >>>> 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] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/cea24ec2-cab4-4376-95ad-7548ba890d78%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/cea24ec2-cab4-4376-95ad-7548ba890d78%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/7bc8b27e-79a7-476a-b411-9de541ed8708%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
