2016-09-29 11:06 GMT+02:00 Potter, Tim (HPE Linux Support) < timothy.pot...@hpe.com>:
> On 29 Sep 2016, at 4:28 pm, Jérémy Lal <kapo...@melix.org> wrote: > > > Two things are wrong with this package: > > > > - wrong upstream, why not choose the original upstream maintaining > 0.7.22 of the software ? > > - wrong name, it should be libjs-xxx since this is a browser lib > > > > Regards, > > Hi Jérémy. Thanks for the reply. I'll redo the package taking this into > account. > > I think I chose the wrong upstream because another upstream has vendored > just > the CustomElement part. Packaging the larger package makes more sense. 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 [0], 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 [1], and some libs are implementing parts of it like the named slots api [2]. 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. 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). Jérémy [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/HTML_Imports [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/shadow-dom/ [2] https://github.com/skatejs/named-slots
