Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
daverupert.com | ||
| | | | |
nolanlawson.com
|
|
| | | | | Shadow DOM is a kind of retcon for the web. As I've written in the past, shadow DOM upends a lot of developer expectations and invalidates many tried-and-true techniques that worked fine in the pre-shadow DOM world. One potentially surprising example is ARIA. Quick recap: shadow DOM allows you to isolate parts of your DOM... | |
| | | | |
broken-links.com
|
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
karlherrick.com
|
|
| | | | | karlherrick.com | |
| | | | |
lea.verou.me
|
|
| | | Disclaimer: This post expresses my opinions, which do not necessarily reflect consensus by the whole Web Components community. A blog post by Ryan Carniato titled "Web Components Are Not the Future" has recently stirred a lot of controversy. A few other JS framework authors pitched in, expressing frustration and disillusionment around Web Components. Some Web Components folks wrote rebuttals, while others repeatedly tried to get to the bottom of the issues, so they could be addressed in the future. When you are on the receiving end of such an onslaught, the initial reaction is to feel threatened and become defensive. However, these kinds of posts can often end up shaking things up and pushing a technology forwards in the end. I have some personal experience: after I published my 2020 post titled "The failed promise of Web Components" which also made the rounds at the time, I was approached by a bunch of folks (Justin Fagnani, Gray Norton, Kevin Schaaf) about teaming up to fix the issues I described. The result of these brainstorming sessions was the Web Components CG which now has a life of its own and has become a vibrant Web Components community that has helped move several specs of strategic importance forwards. | ||
