dom VS extension-manager

My long-shot hope is that the page can come to embody most of the wiring on the page, that how things interact can be encoded there. Behavior of the page can be made visible! There's so much allure to me to hypermedia that's able to declare itself well.

This could radically enhance user agency, if users/extensions can rewire the page on the fly, without having to delve into the (bundled, minified) JS layers.

There's also a chance the just-merged (!) moveBefore() capability means that frameworks will recreate HTML elements less, which is a modern regression that has severely hampered extensions/user agency. https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/1307

in plain htmx, you can target an area that doesn't disrupt a playing video (e.g. the comments box appending to the comments) or you can use a morphing algorithm that disrupts the DOM less.

i have my own morphing algorithm (and a corresponding htmx plugin that allows you to use it) called idiomorph:

https://github.com/bigskysoftware/idiomorph/

i've also been working with the chrome team to get a feature added they are calling "atomic moves":

https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/1255

this would allow us to move elements around in the DOM without losing things like play state or focus or whatever

very excited for this last idea, I think it will be a huge boon for the web in general, not just for htmx

What I said in my previous comment is observably true. Try making a demo where it isn't.

> A DOM node is a living mutable thing, but the JavaScript object representing that node is not.

The JavaScript object is mutable. The first example in the article shows this.

> That is also why a node list is not an array.

Modern APIs on the web return platform arrays (eg JavaScript arrays). https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#js-sequence - here's where the WebIDL spec specifies how to convert a sequence to a JavaScript array.

I'm fully aware of NodeList. There's a reason the spec calls them "old-style" https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#old-style-collections

> I can understand how this is confusing if you have never operated without a framework, but otherwise it’s really straightforward

Sighhhhhh. I've been a web developer for over 20 years, and spent a decade on the Chrome team working on web platform features. Most of my career has been on the low-level parts of the platform.

Could it be possible that people are disagreeing with you, not because they're stupid, but because you're in the wrong? Please try to be open minded. Try creating some demos that test your opinions.

Domenic Denicola (the man who ruined promises) probably will as well.

https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/67

I'm pretty sure it is, since I get "TypeError: nodes[i].parentNode.href is undefined" and "TypeError: $mainmenu.parent(...).get(...) is undefined" errors on both Pale Moon and LibreWolf. Which is part of Shadow/DOM, and originated from google (https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/06/the-state-of-web-components/). Not sure when this particular thing was introduced, since it's a "living standard"/experimental feature (https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/).

JSX chose to align names to the DOM spec [0]. Same for htmlFor and friends.

[0] https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#ref-for-dom-element-classname%E...

You can see why I say this here: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org

The product logos in this article's cover image include different languages and technologies some of which are still relevant for web development today: HTML, CSS, JavaScript / ES / TypeScript (and the DOM), SVG, PDF, PHP, SQL (mySQL, MariaDB), mongoDB, Node.js (the most successful server-side implementation of JavaScript so far).

Thanks for the shout-out! I think I mention this in the talk, but note that YMMV. I designed that benchmark as a kind of "worst-case scenario" where shadow DOM / scoped styles really show a benefit. Depending on your CSS rules, DOM size, and amount of thrashing, the perf benefit could be small to large.

Also, it's still possible to shoot yourself in the foot, especially if you have a large/complex stylesheet repeated across multiple shadow roots. (Not because of the repetition – that's optimized in browsers [1] – but rather because of the number of DOM nodes affected.)

That said, I still think the perf benefits of shadow DOM have been undersung. And Declarative Shadow DOM makes it way more useful.

[1]: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/831#issuecomment-585489...

Extension Manager [0] allows for installing Gnome extensions through an libadwaita app.

This replaces the Gnome Extensions app and the browser extension.

[0]: https://github.com/mjakeman/extension-manager

If I remember correctly you need gnome-shell-extensions for the auto update to work in extension manager. https://github.com/mjakeman/extension-manager

You can use https://github.com/mjakeman/extension-manager to check whether your extensions have support for a particular gnome version from the upgrade assistant.

FWIW, the GNOME Extensions addon broke on Firefox 110.1 (installed natively) on Arch Linux for me too at least a week ago. I've tried troubleshooting why, but came up with little. I've concluded it's just dead for some reason, on my system at least. I have since uninstalled it and have been using Extension Manager instead to manage my shell extensions for the time being. No complaints here.

My suggestion would be to start using https://github.com/mjakeman/extension-manager instead. I think it's much better than the browser-based way of installing them.

Bonus tip: Extension Manager is an app to manage your extensions.

https://github.com/mjakeman/extension-manager can show you a list of compatible extensions before you upgrade, and it also allows you to search and install extensions without the browser extension.

Finally, you might want to check out the Extension Manager app, this makes managing extension easier in my opinion.