From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[email protected]]
> That is a false idol if it means no intermediate steps that explain some but > not all of the platform. Sure. But I don't think the proposed type 2 encapsulation explains any of the platform at all. (Just as per Maciej's email from Monday, the existing shadow DOM spec doesn't explain any of the platform either.) > Sorry, I'm confused. What do we have now, already, among top browsers that is > "good"? Or do you mean prospective stuff? Because among interoperating > browsers, AFAIK we do not have any XBL2 or Shadow DOM or other such, after > all these years. I am not sure of your definition of prospective and top browsers, but according to https://jonrimmer.github.io/are-we-componentized-yet/ and linked issues, Chrome/Opera is shipping and Firefox is shipping behind a flag. And by shipping, I mean shipping the current shadow DOM spec, which I consider "good." (Although, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=811542&hide_resolved=1 shows that Firefox has lots of outstanding bugs, so I can't really say how close they are to unflagging.) > Could you enumerate the three versions (in any sense) of web components in > the worst case you cite above? Sure. They would be: 1. What is being shipped now/the current shadow DOM spec 2. A version of it that gives soft encapsulation 3. A version of it that gives true encapsulation, suitable for implementing built-ins The relative badness of having 1+2+3 vs. just 1+3 is largely a function of what "version" ends up meaning. If it is a small additional flag, no big deal. If it is three separate conceptual models and APIs, bad news.
