3 ms·

The particular part of the Shadow DOM spec that sparked this discussion (the "cat and the hat" combinators)was introduced less than 4 months ago and was met wit

The particular part of the Shadow DOM spec that sparked this discussion (the "cat and the hat" combinators)was introduced less than 4 months ago and was met with some objections just this last week at the CSS F2F meeting. So the 3+ years comment is a bit unfair in this context. I certainly appreciate the level of investment Google has made here and I can sympathize with how it feels to just want to ship a feature already! I've been pumped for web components ever since the first pitch you and Dimitri gave us in a hotel suite a few years ago at TPAC. But keep in mind that both Microsoft and Mozilla have (failed) experiences in building component models for the web (e.g. HTAs). This isn't an easy feature to get correct. The web needs us to get this right and shipping it before there's consensus isn't how we're going to succeed in that regard. -Jacob Rossi [IE team, but speaking on my own opinions]

slightlyoff 13y ago
Hi Jacob, I sympathize with the hesitation that you must feel regarding a request to analyze a feature on a short timeframe, it is however the case that MSFT has in the recent past (Pointer Events, which are GREAT) used its prerogative to ship features ahead of standardization. That contrasts with the current scenario in which agreement by the WG on the names of the APIs _would in fact change our course_. I noted the timeline as I understand it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7187024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7187024 The web platform is behind. It's regrettable that we are, but that's the current situation. If you'd like to help, I encourage you to help weigh alternative in the www-style thread. Engagement on the content and not the process would go a long way at this moment.
- Helianthus 13y ago
  >Engagement on the content and not the process would go a long way at this moment. In all honesty this is a terrible and frightening attitude for you to express. It validates that: * You have contempt for the process. * You demand others shut up about it. You are making it obvious that Google is a problem.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- jrossi_msft 13y ago
  We prefixed our pointer events implementation (which, yes, prefixes have issues and we should stop doing this IMO). Blink is talking about unprefixed, on by default. We updated the implementation and only removed prefixes once we could demonstrate consensus with other browsers (Candidate Recommendation, in this case was one signal of that). Matt and Rossen from our team were at the CSS F2F where this is discussed with some hesitation on design and I'm sure they'll weigh in further on www-style (this API area's not my cup of tea). A consensus process, while annoying at times and never perfect, makes for a better and more interoperable web.
  - slightlyoff 13y ago
    I realize that I'm an outlier but I support prefixing as a possible solution to this sort of thing; but that's even more out of favor with the CSS WG than what's being proposed (AFAICT). Looking forward to timely www-style feedback, it's much appreciated.

slightlyoff 13y ago

Hi Jacob, I sympathize with the hesitation that you must feel regarding a request to analyze a feature on a short timeframe, it is however the case that MSFT has in the recent past (Pointer Events, which are GREAT) used its prerogative to ship features ahead of standardization. That contrasts with the current scenario in which agreement by the WG on the names of the APIs _would in fact change our course_. I noted the timeline as I understand it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7187024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7187024 The web platform is behind. It's regrettable that we are, but that's the current situation. If you'd like to help, I encourage you to help weigh alternative in the www-style thread. Engagement on the content and not the process would go a long way at this moment.

Helianthus 13y ago
>Engagement on the content and not the process would go a long way at this moment. In all honesty this is a terrible and frightening attitude for you to express. It validates that: * You have contempt for the process. * You demand others shut up about it. You are making it obvious that Google is a problem.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jrossi_msft 13y ago
We prefixed our pointer events implementation (which, yes, prefixes have issues and we should stop doing this IMO). Blink is talking about unprefixed, on by default. We updated the implementation and only removed prefixes once we could demonstrate consensus with other browsers (Candidate Recommendation, in this case was one signal of that). Matt and Rossen from our team were at the CSS F2F where this is discussed with some hesitation on design and I'm sure they'll weigh in further on www-style (this API area's not my cup of tea). A consensus process, while annoying at times and never perfect, makes for a better and more interoperable web.
- slightlyoff 13y ago
  I realize that I'm an outlier but I support prefixing as a possible solution to this sort of thing; but that's even more out of favor with the CSS WG than what's being proposed (AFAICT). Looking forward to timely www-style feedback, it's much appreciated.