Web Components

[andrewmcgivery]

Serious question. What exactly does this accomplish that the Web Components spec doesn't solve?

I think you're trying to solve a problem that has already been solved by a lot of very smart people.

I'm going to be very blunt, and I'm sorry if this hurts anyone's feelings, but you need to stop wasting your time. This problem has already been solved and this solution will never be adopted.

[m93a]

EDIT: Do not read this. It's off-topic.

Your opinion is right in many ways. But there's something about XML syntax that makes it horrible to use. Some of the current HTML's syntax extensions are very comfortable to use and quite simple to parse. HTML6 is imho a try to combine the pros of XML and HTML into a new unified syntax.

Yes, I'm quite sure no browser vendor is going to implement it but it could be still used in personal projects, where HTML is insufficient and time is surplus. One example that came to my mind is building a html-based operating system – it would combine the pros of HTML (everybody knows it) with the pros of XML (doubleplussuperextensibility). In such a long-term project, it would be good to have an existing standard to build upon.

Just my 2¢.

[ptica]

there doesn't seem to be any xml syntax involved in web components, does it?
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webcomponents/customelements/

[m93a]

My bad. Seems like if I was replying to another issue :D

Web components are trying to achieve XML advantages without XML. That's neat and there are lots of cool features in their spec. But it's kinda not native. Why should I use JavaScript to define an element – this kills non-dynamic documents.

If you were writing an app (which is what are WC for), you'd use it anyway but I'm not sure if it's the best final solution possible.

On the other side, the current HTML6 concept doesn't offer any way to define custom elements at all, it just treats them like unknown elements. So yes, the current HTML6 spec is quite useless in this way.