3 ms·
The goal for OJ is create reusable UI building blocks. So I agree completely that keeping sites simple and declarative is the way forward. I would argue though
by evanmoran 13y ago
The goal for OJ is create reusable UI building blocks. So I agree completely that keeping sites simple and declarative is the way forward. I would argue though that if the abstraction well reasoned it doesn't matter if it is in HTML or in JS. It still simplifies things for the programmer and maintainer.
Or another way to say it -- Imagine you can insert a YouTubeVideo as simply as you can insert a div. If that YouTubeVideo component is well tested, then you are actually saving your self time and will make a more robust site.
- diminish 13y agocould be great if i could describe the reusable UI building blocks in a markup language, do their formatting separately with style sheet fragments and add a simple scripting language for actions and animations.
- JanezStupar 13y agoYeah I vote that it be our first priority to implement those immediately after we complete our framework. And then we can have laymen code the templates and styling because it will be so simple. It will be glorious!
- meemoo 13y agoSounds like the Custom Element standard that's coming soon. http://www.polymer-project.org/ http://www.polymer-project.org/ makes polyfills to use it today.
- ulisesrmzroche 13y agoWeb Components are already here and they're part of HTML5 itself. What does this do to differentiate itself? To me, at first glance, it looks like a dead project already.
- rickjames28 13y agoYeah, once I read his explanation web components immediately came to mind. You know what the status of web components is in the major browser engines?
- ulisesrmzroche 13y agoNatively, on most evergreen browsers, mutation observers and a limited shadow-dom on chrome canary. The polymer project gets you all the way though, check http://www.polymer-project.org/compatibility.html http://www.polymer-project.org/compatibility.html.