Webcomponents: Question: where to incubate HTML modules?

[travisleithead]

We'd like to move our explainer and spec-related content into a more dedicated repo for continued incubation at this point. One obvious home for that incubation is here in w3c/webcomponents, where we already have a variety of modules-related issues tracked.

Alternately, we could start a new dedicated repo for html modules, which would be a discoverable home for future html-modules issues and spec development until such time as the feature would graduate into WHATWG/HTML and TC39 for their respective parts.

Do folks here have a preference?

[hayatoito]

Hi Travis!
I don't have any strong preference. I think it's okay to move the explainer to a better repo.

You might want to see the discussion in the past, https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/652, where we tried to close this w3c/webcomponents repository, though that doesn't happen yet.

[bkardell]

I think a new repo is better, personally. wc has a lot in it and it feels a little outside that anyways.. To me.

[rniwa]

Moving them to this repository seems okay to me. Creating a new repository in WHATWG is fine too.

[travisleithead]

Tell me more about a new repository in WHATWG... would that be the start of a new workstream?

[rniwa]

That's a question for @annevk / @domenic.

[annevk]

As far as I can tell HTML modules require some changes to ECMAScript and mostly changes to HTML. I don't really see what part would be standalone given how tightly coupled it is.

[annevk]

Seems per discussion in #783 I hadn't read yet this should eventually only be changes to HTML, once refactoring of ES has been completed.

[travisleithead]

Everyone, thanks for your feedback. After mulling this over, we think the best course of action is to start the spec work directly as a PR against HTML and incubate there, while using the issue tracker at whatwg/html and the other issues that are already here in w3c/webcomponents.

[mkay581]

That is great! Can you all drop a link to the new PR in this thread?

[travisleithead]

...we're still working on adapting these proposed spec changes into PR format, but stay tuned.

[rniwa]

Instead of making a PR, could you give us the updated proposal? It's hard to read the spec changes as one coherent proposal. I think for a big proposal like this, I think it's probably a good idea to have an explainer / spec change document until we come to a consensus.

[annevk]

Note that creating a PR will produce readable diff documents. But yeah, it depends a bit on how spread out the changes become.

[travisleithead]

Hmm, well, it would be good to update the explainer regrardless. We have our explainer here, if it helps.

[travisleithead]

@rniwa Explainer is up-to-date, now with a list of significant open-issues at the end. If there are ways you think it could be improved, we'd love your feedback!