3 ms·
It's even easier to incorporate standard web components, because using them is as simple as using an HTML tag. If you have separate teams of engineers and desig
by spankalee 7y ago
It's even easier to incorporate standard web components, because using them is as simple as using an HTML tag. If you have separate teams of engineers and designers/content creators, web components are a really nice interface that let's the engineers hide all of the implementation complexity for interactive components.
- strogonoff 7y agoI wish there was a single accepted standard for deploying native components. Last time I checked there were two competing implementations, JS modules (<script type="module" src="my-component.js">) and HTML imports (<link rel="import" href="my-component.html">, my personal favorite).
- spankalee 7y agoHTML Imports are not standard and have been removed from Chrome. <script type="module" src="my-component.js"> is indeed the single accepted standard.
- strogonoff 7y agoThe working draft was last updated in December 2019, unfortunate that browser support is so poor.
- spankalee 7y agoBrowser support isn't poor, it's just not a thing anymore. Chrome removing HTML Imports in _good_ so that we can move on to an agreed upon replacement that integrates with the JS module system like HTML Modules.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- strogonoff 7y agoBack then I recall HTML modules being used as a synonym with HTML imports… It was contrasted with JS modules. Interesting. Anyway, the standard is there and apparently being worked on so I fail to see how it entirely isn’t a thing—hopefully another incarnation will land. All around it just feels like a solid way to bundle all the aspects of an element together.