The time is right for a DOM templating API

Post by Zanfa » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 6:27 AM UTC

JimDabell wrote: post #216

jdkoeck wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hard not to laugh out loud at "We know what good syntax for templating looks like." First of all, it's not very nice to laugh in the face of someone advocating for progress on the web platform, which benefits everyone. Second of all, yes we do now know what good syntax for templating is, it's basically jsx (and I'm saying this as someone who's really not a fan of React). It took the whole web by storm, it's been ad…

> yes we do now know what good syntax for templating is, it's basically jsx (and I'm saying this as someone who's really not a fan of React). It took the whole web by storm, it's been adapted for all kinds of frameworks, and it's undeniable that all js templating systems converged towards common attributes: templates-as-expressions, composition via nesting and control flow with just javascript (instead of specific te…

Post by jdkoeck » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 7:43 AM UTC

JimDabell wrote: post #222

Zanfa wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> JSX really isn’t that great. Sometimes it feels like most React devs don’t know how to write a for loop or if statement because they mostly use map(), ternaries, and short-circuiting, which are not very ergonomic compared with markup-based approaches. I'm the last person to vouch for React and the horrors it has inflicted upon web development, but the one thing it definitely got right compared to Angular (and Vue)…

JSX is as much a new language as Vue’s templating. JSX extends JavaScript syntax; Vue extends HTML syntax. If you’re working on generating markup, it makes more sense to do that at the markup level than constantly switch between markup and imperative JavaScript. It might use JavaScript for control flow, but does it really count when it uses it in a way that is not idiomatic at all? It’s not idiomatic JavaScript to us…

Post by troupo » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 9:58 AM UTC

_benton wrote: post #219

JimDabell wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web components were such a big disappointment. 200% the complexity for 20% of the functionality. Everything coming out of that area seems to be hideously over-engineered while failing to solve the problems people wanted them to. My feeling is that they were focused on designing something that is aimed at building form controls, not the kinds of components web developers use in practice. They are designed to make brow…

Im not sure what you're referring to, they seem pretty straightforward to me. Create a class that extends HTMLElement, implement stuff in connectedCallback and attributeChangedCallback. Return a list of attributes in static observedAttributes. Or use some extended class if you want, there are plenty and they're easy to create your own.

Post by _benton » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 10:35 AM UTC

troupo wrote: post #225

_benton wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not sure what you're referring to, they seem pretty straightforward to me. Create a class that extends HTMLElement, implement stuff in connectedCallback and attributeChangedCallback. Return a list of attributes in static observedAttributes. Or use some extended class if you want, there are plenty and they're easy to create your own.

You mean other than the 20+ web specs they added to platform (often to "fix" problems that they themselves introduced and/or that no one else has)? https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents-cg/2022.html (this list appeared after half a dozen or more specs had already been rammed through) Or that their mere existence infects nearly every spec in existence delaying and needlessly complicating actual useful specs like Scoped…

Post by _benton » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 10:37 AM UTC

lenkite wrote: post #224

JimDabell wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web components were such a big disappointment. 200% the complexity for 20% of the functionality. Everything coming out of that area seems to be hideously over-engineered while failing to solve the problems people wanted them to. My feeling is that they were focused on designing something that is aimed at building form controls, not the kinds of components web developers use in practice. They are designed to make brow…

It should have been possible to declare and use simple web-components - which use a template and a CSS class - without any Javascript.