Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

October Meeting and Agenda #101

Closed
Westbrook opened this issue Sep 30, 2024 · 5 comments
Closed

October Meeting and Agenda #101

Westbrook opened this issue Sep 30, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@Westbrook
Copy link
Collaborator

For those of you who would like to take part in the October meeting of the Web Components Community Group, please share your availability here as we work to schedule the right day/time to gather. Don't forget, all WCCG events are listed on this calendar. 📆

As a reminder, we chat between meetings in Discord, where we'd love to hear from you.

If there are other topics you'd like to discuss, breakouts you would already like to have scheduled, or anything else, please drop your thoughts in the comments below!
@Westbrook
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Some, none, or all of these topics may be of interest:

@michaelwarren1106
Copy link
Contributor

I'm going to try to work on updating the process idea GH issue today and see if I cant get that in a state where we can review it a second time before talking about adoption and getting some stuff stood up to help on the process side. I've had a lot going on and havent gotten a chance to fold in feedback from the initial review. gonna try to get to it!

@o-t-w
Copy link

o-t-w commented Oct 6, 2024

Would it be worth talking about CSS module scripts, seeing as there has been some movement on that recently?

@sorvell
Copy link

sorvell commented Oct 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

  • framework feedback on integrating custom elements, specifically reducing pain points:
    • setting properties v. attributes
    • performance: importNode v. cloneNode
    • event delegation and retargeting / composition (e.g. submit event)
  • feedback on styling idea and potential next steps

@Westbrook
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Westbrook commented Oct 18, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Today's notes, as best I can do while leading all the valuable conversation today.

Action Items

  • @Westbrook to send around availability like to schedule our next session for 2-3 weeks out
Meeting chat within...

Alan W. Smith
11:13 AM
I lost audio. brb
Dave Rupert
11:13 AM
So.. uh... did anything interesting happen recently?
You
11:13 AM
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jOz2Mu8y49j81WPE7__sHkyoUQey6X09JNiYmEh4b1I/edit?tab=t.0
keep
Pinned
You
11:17 AM
#102
#99
Gray Norton
11:24 AM
Makes sense! I do think a concise statement of what specific problems the process is trying to solve, or the goals the process is aiming to achieve, would make the doc stronger, so I'll leave a comment to that effect on the issue!
Owen Buckley
11:28 AM
or if you have any thoughts on this
#100
Owen Buckley
11:31 AM
maybe just a recap from TPAC?
Pascal Vos
11:43 AM
hey michael
Justin Fagnani
11:45 AM
There are two features here:

  • inline CSS modules: not tied to shadow DOM
  • Referring to a CSS module by URL from a shadow root: yes, tied to shadow DOM
    The first feature could be later used from other places if there are any
    You can polyfill @sheet with @supports too
    Justin Fagnani
    11:47 AM
    The main innovation here is inlining part of the module graph
    and there's huge potential there outside of CSS, IMO
    Jeroen Zwartepoorte
    11:54 AM
    I just created this issue; that's my main concern/question with the style sharing proposal. [Declarative Shadow DOM Style Sharing] Unclear how this works icw bundling MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers#896
    Steve Orvell
    11:54 AM
    FW can see WC as a threat to their existence. This is just an adversarial perspective that doesn't need to exist.
    Steve Orvell
    11:57 AM
    Let's try to be quick in the comments to get a change for everyone to talk in our limited time...
    Michael Warren
    11:57 AM
    sorry, this is a big topic ha
    You
    11:57 AM
    FYI, if you have time, I have time to go through till the Goole Meet hour kicks us off...
    Michael Warren
    11:59 AM
    "the tax" is definitely worse the more you try to abstract away from things. but there are definitely folks that think that the spec is wholly bad and only userland build steps can fix it etc
    Gray Norton
    11:59 AM
    Yeah, but you can recognize that tendency and try to overcome it, or lean into it, and Rich is 100% leaning into it
    Dave Rupert
    12:00 PM
    I think this whole thing exposes some rough edges. We can smooth those edges out. e.g. Everyone's first test drive of Shadow DOM sort of sucks, how do we improve that onboarding.
    Joeri Sebrechts
    12:00 PM
    FWIW, i learned a ton from ryan's livestream, made a 500 line markdown document with notes. There was a lot in there to learn from and respond to.
    Steve Orvell
    12:00 PM
    Ryan's post was really disappointing as well. "biggest threat to the web" isn't a great way to open a discussion
    Pascal Vos
    12:01 PM
    it's not constructive
    Nolan Lawson
    12:01 PM
    it's an exaggeration. people talk differently to their audience than to each other. notice how constructive Ryan was in the Discord
    Michael Warren
    12:02 PM
    I talked to ryan privately some also, he definitely seems like a good candidate for working with us possibly. I think we're still pretty far apart on ideas, but I think he's maybe amenable to coming to work on it
    Alan W. Smith
    12:03 PM
    I'm very new to web components, something I might be able to offer is the experience of someone at the early stage.
    Gray Norton
    12:04 PM
    Markbage?
    Nolan Lawson
    12:04 PM
    That's not necessarily new, though. Speedometer is browsers trying to make frameworks faster
    You
    12:05 PM
    Using frameworks as an exemplar of usage, rather than an exemplar of best practice.
    Dave Rupert
    12:07 PM
    +1 webcomponents.org is slowly turning into a liability
    Alan W. Smith
    12:08 PM
    newbie perspective: didn't know webcomponents.org existed
    never hit it in my searches
    Nolan Lawson
    12:09 PM
    I really like Justin's new custom element schema validator tool. If we could streamline linting WCs then we could have a better centralized "storefront"
    Owen Buckley
    12:09 PM
    just know you're competing with "vibes". its like saying your genre of music or flavor of ice cream is wrong. IOW, do we believe WCs are subjective, or objective, in they eyes of the beholder?
    Nolan Lawson
    Nolan Lawson
    12:09 PM
    Might need some equivalent of definitely-typed though for abandoned WCs
    Gray Norton
    12:09 PM
    I do think rebooting WC.org would be a good thing for this group to consider. The Lit team was trying to move this ball forward, but that didn't pan out
    Owen Buckley
    12:10 PM
    but building and listening is probably a good strategy
    Michael Warren
    12:10 PM
    honestly, if we could track down and write down some of the rationale for how things ended up being built the way they were, that might go a long way...
    a lot of folks think "things are weird" but have no context for why they ended up the way they did etc
    Alan W. Smith
    12:11 PM
    is that content outline avaible?
    You
    12:12 PM
    Where might not matter that much in the end.
    Michael Warren
    12:12 PM
    imo highlighting the non-FMAANG contributors to WCs would be huge!
    Dave Rupert
    12:12 PM
    I have a giant list of components, libraries, design systems, metaframeworks, etc. in a Notion. Happy to share/donate that.
    Michael Warren
    12:12 PM
    lots of folks think that WCs are only being driven by the big tech companies and thats increasingly not true
    Justin Fagnani
    12:13 PM
    +1 And can you run those through the validator? :)
    https://validator.elematic.dev/
    Michael Warren
    12:13 PM
    [ Ideation ][ Process ] WCCG Process proposal #99
    Pascal Vos
    12:13 PM
    thank you for leading again @Westbrook
    Michael Warren
    12:14 PM
    does that mean more work on CEM analyzer tools too then? :)
    Alan W. Smith
    12:14 PM
    newbie perspective: I have no idea what a manifest is (eek)
    You
    12:14 PM
    @alan: https://custom-elements-manifest.open-wc.org/
    Michael Warren
    12:15 PM
    https://github.com/webcomponents/custom-elements-manifest
    ill try! :)
    Alan W. Smith
    12:15 PM
    have a good one!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@sorvell @Westbrook @michaelwarren1106 @o-t-w