Hi Jérémy. Just circling back to this after spending time on other things. On 29 Sep 2016, at 7:31 PM, Jérémy Lal <email@example.com> wrote: > Packaging only custom-elements actually makes sense in the long term ! > > Here's why: currently only the custom-elements part of the v0 spec > seems to be surviving. The HTML Imports is not supported by firefox , and the > Shadow DOM v0 is hard to polyfill - the version in webcomponents is full of compromises > and workarounds (just look at the polyfill code size and the fact no new releases happened > for months). > Shadom DOM v1 is being upstreamed to whatwg DOM spec , > and some libs are implementing parts of it like the named slots api . > > So... i don't know what's the best solution. Using the correct upstream is always better, unless > the alternate upstream is actually a better maintained fork. I think I'll go with only custom-element for the moment. If this turns out to be a mistake it shouldn't be too hard to recover by packaging the full library as libjs-webcomponents-js and judicious use of > In any case my remark about using libjs is still valid (and sorry for my "wrong" words, i usually > try to be less rude even before my morning coffee). I've renamed to libjs-webcomponentsjs-custom-element-v0. Tim.
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail