On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Bobby Mozumder <mozum...@futureclaw.com>

> On Mar 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Sandro Paganotti <sandro.pagano...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> well, yes; but once it's done accordingly to the behaviour required it
> could be released and then used by everybody. So it is just a matter of
> creating a new catalog of components that anyone can import using the html
> import. In my view it would be something really close to your initial
> implementation proposal:
> <article is='json-enhanced' remote-node="
> http://apiname/endpoint.json:propertyname";></article>
> -sandro.
> I think that's what being done right now, where everybody defines expected
> behavior of elements and create a catalog of components that anyone can
> import.  We call that the "web browser" and that's why we're here.  =^D

+1; my point is: in this case I don't think it's necessary to move this
solution into a native browser implementation. In my opinion the browser
should provide tools developers can use to built web experiences. If I have
to try to imagine a solution complex enough even only to handle some uses
cases (eg: dealing with network problems, missing properties, etc..) it
would look much like a small framework than a simple tool and, in my
opinion, frameworks should be kept in a JS domain, so everyone can pick the
one he like without having to deal with something already into the browser.


> -bobby
> ---
> Bobby Mozumder
> *Editor-in-Chief*
> FutureClaw Magazine
> mozum...@futureclaw.com
> +1-240-745-5287
> www.futureclaw.com
> twitter.com/futureclaw <https://www.twitter.com/futureclaw>
> www.linkedin.com/in/mozumder

Reply via email to