On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Matthew McNulty <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 9, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Scott Miles <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm not wont to try to summarize it here, since he said it already better >>> there. Perhaps the short version is: nobody knows what the 'standard use >>> case' is yet. >> >> How is that possible given we've already spent 2+ years on the whole web >> components effort? > > I don't want to start a word game here > > Really? Because that is exactly what you are doing. This is the equivalent of > "no offense, but..." It's disingenuous to put it mildly.
I'm sorry if I offended you but I never intend to play a word game since it's not a productive use of my time. I do admit that I never word things nicely. I'm not a pleasant person to talk with. I'm sorry. > but if it's really true that we don't know what web components' the > primary/standard use case is, then we have a much bigger issue here. > > And here's where you start the word game, by adding words and subtly changing > the definition from what was obviously intended, and then fighting against > your new straw man. That was definitely not my intention. > You know exactly what was meant by what Scott said. No, I don't. > How developers and the wider ecosystem of the web will precisely use the > primitives provided by the platform and the patterns that then emerge are > unknown at best at this early stage. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by this? > We know what use cases we are trying to solve, and so do you. Could you give me pointers to the exact list of use case you have? > By providing the lowest-level primitives possible, we're opening the door to > use cases we haven't even considered. This is A Good Thing. No. That's not a use case. - R. Niwa
