Hi Joern, Yes, HTML imports as a spec is essentially dead. No other browser is likely to implement it.
Here's a link to one of the ongoing discussions on HTML modules, a possible replacement for HTML imports. https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/645 Thanks, Arthur On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Joern Turner <joern.tur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Arthur, > > thanks a lot for your detailed answer. > > Am Dienstag, 12. September 2017 22:41:40 UTC+2 schrieb arthure: >> >> Hi Jeorn, >> >> Sorry, I missed the original message over the weekend. >> >> To answer your questions: yes, there's a lot of interest in a declarative >> templates (a.k.a., "writing HTML in HTML"). Many of the team members feel >> the same way you do. We'd love to see a solution—ideally a standards-based >> solution that doesn't require a build step. There is currently a standards >> discussion around "HTML modules", but it's somewhat unclear how that will >> play out. The minimal case would _only_ allow you to define HTML in an HTML >> module. A more elaborate version would allow script to be embedded in the >> module, as well, allowing single-file components like we have in Polymer 2. >> > > It's a relief to hear that i'm not alone with my point of view. I've > been waiting for such a solution to come along and it would be a nightmare > if that gets dropped again. Btw, is there any resource where to follow the > W3C discussions? I wasn't able to find anything like a community group or > something. > >> >> But right now, we don't have a standard way to import HTML. What we have >> is a standard way to import JS, in the form ES6 modules. This is a case >> where our desire to have declarative elements is at odds with our desire to >> produce standards-based solutions—ideally ones that don't require a build >> step. >> > > Means that HTML imports don't have a good standing? Heard rumors that some > of the WG members don't want to follow that road though i personally find > them very elegant. But i know how demanding and long-winding discussions > about standards can be (been there before). At least it seems there's still > hope that a standards-based, declarative approach will be possible sometime > in the future. > >> >> The Polymer 3 preview is a minimal viable version of Polymer in ES6 >> modules. In the short term, any HTML-in-HTML solution is going to require a >> polyfill or build step, since HTML modules aren't defined yet. >> >> As far as the Bower => yarn transition, that's forced on us by the >> deprecation of Bower. We've had many, many requests to make Polymer >> available through the npm registry even before Bower was deprecated. It's >> also the dominant package registry and so it was the logical choice for us. >> The tools team has been thinking very long and hard about how to transition >> to the npm registry, and until yarn came along, they couldn't see a way >> clear to do it without building another, custom tool to manage >> webcomponents-via-npm. I realize that a new tool is always a pain, but just >> to be clear—this particular change wasn't made without a fair amount of >> thought. And we'll be continuing to work with the community to work out the >> details of this story. >> > > Thanks for this insight into your discussions. Appreciate that. Also i'm > very pleased to hear that you guys don't take the tools question easy. In > the light of the bower deprecation the change makes absolutely sense. > >> >> Hope that helps a little bit. >> >> If you haven't read it, we also go into the rationale behind this change >> in a previous blog post: https://www.polymer-proj >> ect.org/blog/2017-08-22-npm-modules.html >> >> Finally, I'd encourage you to join the discussion on Slack >> <https://polymer-slack.herokuapp.com/>. >> > I've already joined Slack ;) > > Thanks again. > > Best, > > Joern > >> >> Cheers, >> Arthur >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Joern Turner <joern....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Really? Nobody? >>> >>> Is this the wrong place to ask/discuss design questions or am i asking >>> too much at once? Nobody else concerned about such questions? I would be >>> really thankful if anybody could point me to the right location to ask such >>> questions. >>> >>> Again - i'm an enthusiastic user of Polymer 2 and do quite a lot of >>> applications with it but i'd like to learn about where actually Polymer >>> project is heading and to unserstand the choices. Otherwise it's getting >>> very hard to commit to it and to see if it's still a fit to my needs. >>> >>> Any comments welcome. >>> >>> -Joern >>> >>> Am Freitag, 8. September 2017 13:17:12 UTC+2 schrieb Joern Turner: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> just read the blog article " >>>> Hands-on with the Polymer 3.0 preview" >>>> To start with: i'm a huge fan of Polymer and trying to push it >>>> whereever i can in our projects. I appreciate the hard work of all >>>> developers of that fantastic project. >>>> >>>> >>>> In that light please allow me some criticism: >>>> >>>> >>>> Seems that Polymer 3 is bringing another toolchain with it again >>>> (yarn). Polymer tools are fine and you want them for productivity. I'm not >>>> opposed to learn new things when they bring significant value. However >>>> having to learn a new way of doing things with every major release is also >>>> a burden for each Polymer user that doesn't eat every newest tool for >>>> breakfast. - would be great if you guys give it a thought next time. >>>> >>>> But now for the important things: >>>> >>>> >>>> i can live with the removal of link imports though i personally liked >>>> them but another syntax does equally well here. >>>> >>>> >>>> But i'm kind of shocked by the prospect that Polymer 3 seems to drop >>>> declarative templates in favor of string jungle. Imagining to build >>>> complex templates as strings gives me a shiver and makes me doubt about all >>>> the work i put into Polymer 2 apps now. >>>> >>>> >>>> IMO HTML templates are one major selling point for me to work with >>>> Polymer (and to convince others of the innovation Polymer brings). I don't >>>> want to imagine bulding complex templates with strings. >>>> >>>> >>>> Furthermore - turning the representation into a pure javascript one >>>> does harm the component metaphor IMHO. A compoment (of course my view of >>>> things) is built on-top of a custom HTML Element. As such it's natural that >>>> a web component is a html snippet. I always especially liked that about >>>> Polymer. And wasn't there something like "everything is an element" slogan? >>>> Is that deprecated? Sorry but representing an element as a ES6 module >>>> doesn't feel like the 'next generation' but more like 'yet another JS >>>> framework'. Always speaking for myself - but this is a big step backward. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry if my complaint directs in the wrong direction - i don't follow >>>> the W3C Web Component group, Apologies in that case. >>>> >>>> >>>> As i doubt that my personal opinion will influence the flow of things >>>> here's my question: will there be any way to work with declarative >>>> templates in the longer term? Maybe as an option? >>>> >>>> >>>> What about CSS and ES6 modules? No example of that in the blog post? >>>> >>>> >>>> Lots of questions and complaints i know but i would really appreciate >>>> your opinions/comments. >>>> >>>> >>>> Joern >>>> >>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Polymer" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to polymer-dev...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms >>> gid/polymer-dev/3d64dcb3-b708-4bb3-82b3-104a0fba1b05%40googlegroups.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/3d64dcb3-b708-4bb3-82b3-104a0fba1b05%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Polymer" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to polymer-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/polymer-dev/cea24ec2-cab4-4376-95ad-7548ba890d78%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/cea24ec2-cab4-4376-95ad-7548ba890d78%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to polymer-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CADSbU_zkB-s4doiLEnJd_icoQULq0g%3DAeUfyvtWkrm_gQW62vA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
