I echo your sentiments. I use the Atom and it's linter to edit my Polymer HTML templates and I don't know if it will work with html template literals.
I am using Polymer in a Java web application with no Javascript build framework. I simply update my Polymer components and refresh the page to immediately see the updates which is extremely productive for me. Adding in a preprocessor to convert HTML files into Javascript literals is unacceptable to me. I hope Google keeps the html import functionality in both Polymer and Chrome until an official web standard can be worked out. I am using Polymer for an internal application and making it Chrome only is fine with me. It boggles my mind that after 26 years of the web and a decade after AJAX there is still no standard way of dynamically loading HTML files and JavaScript innerHTML is the only solution. On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 4:05:31 AM UTC-6, Joern Turner wrote: > > Hi, > > biggest noticable change in 3.x from 2.x is the complete loss of the > declarative approach for templates. > > I critizised that before and got the encouraging answer that there are > many people behind me in seeing the declarative approach as important. > > Looking at the latest blog article an the example template function the > horror returned ;) > > I keep on nagging on this - IMHO shifting from HTML to JavaScript for the > representation of a Web Component is to state it mildly 'very unlucky'. > > I know the Polymer team is following the current state of the discussion > in the (upcoming) standard but nevertheless the point remains: if > Polymer and Web Components take this direction IMO Web Components loose a > major selling point and are hardly better than many of the JS frameworks > we've seen > over the years. While the representation change seems to be hard to resist > (sometimes i hate democracy ;) there should be at least some way to keep > the template declarative. > > I know the work of standard comitees so i do not blame the Polymer team at > all. However the decision - obviously triggered by the move to js module > loaders - is a technological decision and > not a design or architecture-driven one. That's a poor approach especially > considering the intended long-term relevance of a W3C standard. > > So, first i'd like to know how the current debate is going and apologize > if this is not the right place to ask. > > Second - is there any more appropriate list at the W3C where i can throw > in my 2 cents? The W3C page does not reveal much at first sight and i'm > missing up-to-date minutes as well as latest drafts. > > Thanks a lot. > > 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/bb8d249b-2447-43bf-a665-b47d337a56b2%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
