3 ms·
I like progress but I think this deserves all the criticism it gets. Okay, so it may be a cleaner way to markup richer controls on a page but it's essentially $
by yogo 13y ago
I like progress but I think this deserves all the criticism it gets. Okay, so it may be a cleaner way to markup richer controls on a page but it's essentially $('.some-class').controlPlugin({ opt: ... }); (I'm not saying that's how it works).
Not to mention you still have to deal with the css and js files that the control needs. Personally I would have liked to see a better way to manage assets that these plugins (and now controls) depend on. Like some kind of way to bundle everything. Then again this whole custom html tags thing wreaks of Asp.NET WebForms.
Edit: spelling
- atlantic 13y ago"wreaks of Asp.NET WebForms." Sorry, it's "reeks".
- yogo 13y agoThanks, that's the reeking I was referring to :)
- crisnoble 13y agoFrom the article: " Web Components promise to open up a new realm of development by letting web developers write custom, reusable HTML tags. Think of them as JavaScript plugins without the need for additional code initialization or boilerplate markup/styling. " So it sounds to me that is solves for use of jQuery datepicker plugins in a framework agnostic way. I for one would like to move away from using javascript, which depends on a framework, to create styled interactions on my web pages.
- yogo 13y agoMe too, I would like to move away from needing to depend on things like jquery ui, but let's not forget how we got here. It might eventually get to live up to its promises, but until all browsers are at the same place in terms of compatibility anything can happen.
- Pxtl 13y agoI honestly think WebForms had some great ideas, it was just marred by a catastrophically ugly and leaky implementation. It's easily the most painful platform I've ever worked with, but there are some things in it that were clever and worth revisiting.