Kyle,

I've been watching and interacting with browser vendors as they try so hard to 
come to agreement on the spec, but none so far after 4 years. The Webkit team 
and IE team have not adopted it yet. and the discussion on reaching consensus 
for a minimum viable web component spec is still ongoing, so I expect a couple 
more ears before a break thru. 

That's two in dog years. A very long time I think. And I'm honestly not sure 
about the whole web component spec as it relates to shadow dom; it seems to be 
edge case driven and I think far more complicated than it could be.

My thinking is leaning toward build-time porting of components from one 
framework to another. You do it once and you're set. But that too should not 
over stretch to cover its own set of edge cases and what if's. I think at some 
point we will learn to build components that can be easily ported over to 
whatever framework using automated tools and some manual refactoring.

Not sure how hard that is but I would bet it's easier than what the folks over 
at Google have been dealing with trying to get one spec for Web Components that 
all browser vendors would be willing to implement. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Kyle Cordes <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
>> On March 10, 2015 at 11:31:29 AM, Marc Fawzi 
>> ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
>> I understand the practical futility of my call to have a standard for 
>> reusable components that allows us as users to carry our investment forward 
>> to the next great framework. But expressing it allows me to think a little 
>> deeper about the possible solution.
> 
> My hunch is that once adoption gets a little wider, "Web Components" will be 
> the standard under which reusable across framework components appear. Because 
> that standard will have browsers direct support and will not be specific to 
> any one language etc., it will likely have an order or two of magnitude more 
> components available than anything specific to React or CLJS etc.
> 
> So the answer will be: if you want access to a pool of reusable components, 
> make sure that your framework can both make and consume web components in a 
> reasonably idiomatic and convenient way.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kyle Cordes
> http://kylecordes.com 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
> first post.
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "ClojureScript" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.

-- 
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"ClojureScript" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.

Reply via email to