The HTML + CSS first approach and JS only for enrichment sounds great, and like what should be done anyway. I wonder though, how it will play out in reality. Will web developers using this library make the effort to keep essential functionality JS free, if possible, and provide additional views using whatever web framework they use, or will they implement essential functionality as "JS enrichment", requiring JS for things that do not actually need to be done in JS at all?

▲

microflash 2 hours ago | parent [-]

In reality, building anything complex is a huge pain using web components, particularly because it is hard to author them with appropriate level of styling API and accessibility support. In my experience, web components are fantastic for consumers but terrible for the authors.

Still, the advantages are clear: they don’t need any special runtime and can be used with other JS frameworks.

Another thing in favor of web components is support for custom registries which make gradual migration from one version to another trivial. AFAIK, no JS framework has an equivalent of custom registries.

	▲	claytongulick 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Try keeping them in the light dom. Everything works like normal html + css, but you get all the benefits of reusability and encapsulated script logic. Lit-html (the library, not the framework) gives this approach super rendering speed too.