dom VS standards-positions

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...

We luh-luh-luv you! They gestated and nurtured the spec. They fought over bike sheds! All for us!!

You can read through the conversations to understand more of the context

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100#is...

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/336

The main struggle is around giving informed consent that explains the risks. Understandably, browsers don't want to ship a "Set my printer on fire" button.

You can check why Mozilla and Apple have opted to not support this.

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154

https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/28

Neither Mozilla or Webkit are satisfied that the proposal is safe by default, and contains footguns for the user that can be pretty destructive.

FWIW Mozilla updated their position on Web Serial API to "neutral" and clarified that they might be okay with enabling the API with an add-on.

https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webserial

Allowing serial but not HID would be really strange. With HID you get standard identifiers that let you filter out devices that are too dangerous for the web. With serial you get nothing. Even if you know a device is dangerous, there's no way to protect users from it.

Hasn't FireFox been dragging their asses on @scope? https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/472

It took years to just convince them of the need for it. And I'm not sure anyone got convinced vs Chrome had already shipped it and Safari has it planned so they caved in.

Hard to believe FireFox used to be a leader of the modern web.

As mentioned by others, OK idea, but not a fan that this isn't standardized. After a quick search+peruse, these seem to indicate that it's not around the corner either. Happy (/hope) to be corrected.

https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/4180

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/990

Mozilla's position on these specs is nicely outlined publicly and transparently as part of their standards-positions project: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100

I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare.

It's a shame it impacts some hobby usecases, but I don't think this outweighs the reasoning set out on the GitHub issue.

This should have big warnings on it. Some of these are not web standards; they are features implemented unilaterally by Google in Blink that have been explicitly rejected by both Mozilla and Apple on privacy and security grounds.

Take Web Bluetooth, for example:

Mozilla:

> This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.

— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth

Apple:

> Here are some examples of features we have decided to not yet implement due to fingerprinting, security, and other concerns, and where we do not yet see a path to resolving those concerns

— https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/

This is Microsoft’s Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish bullshit applied to the web platform by Google. Google keeps implementing these things despite all other major rendering engines rejecting them, convinces people that they are part of the web, resulting in sites like this, then people start asking why Firefox and Safari are “missing functionality”. These are not part of the web platform, they are Google APIs that have been explicitly rejected.

Is BLE a PWA requirement? I think they explained their position pretty well here, regardless of whether I agree:

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

I took a glance at Can I Use what the difference between the last public release of Firefox and Chrome is [1] and they don't really have that big of a difference in the eyes of normal use-cases? Some of these aren't implemented purely because of privacy reasons, the proposals aren't finished yet or complexity [2].

Why would Firefox need to change to Chromium engine? The only websites I notice that don't work with Firefox is because of user-agent targetting or just putting 5-second time-outs in Youtube code on non-chrome webbrowsers [3].

Can you give some examples of websites not working on Firefox?

[1] https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+120%2Cfirefox+121&compar...

[2] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

[3] https://www.neowin.net/news/youtube-seemingly-intentionally-...