Web Components were a Google effort and little negotiation was made with other browsers before shipping. Like most negotiations in life, parties that don’t feel involved lack enthusiasm and tend not to agree.
Web Components were an ambitious proposal. Initial APIs were high-level and complex to implement (albeit for good reasons), which only added to contention and disagreement between vendors.
Google pushed forward, they sought feedback, gained community buy-in; but in hindsight, before other vendors shipped, usability was blocked.
> but in hindsight, before other vendors shipped, usability was blocked.
Haven't we learned this lesson before?
I think it's more likely that Google didn't want other vendors' interference, to avoid design by committee thwarting whatever they were trying to achieve.
It seems like the way to do it is from a bit of both camps. Someone has just got to make it, deploy it and use it. Critically is this bit: Everyone (including the author) needs to learn from it, decide how to improve, what to change what to scrap. For there is were the specification process starts for all involved.
Refer to how SPDY was developed. Lessons were learned because stuff got done and it was out there. Then everybody came back to the table a little wiser. On the whole at least that's how it looked to me.
Web Components were a Google effort and little negotiation was made with other browsers before shipping. Like most negotiations in life, parties that don’t feel involved lack enthusiasm and tend not to agree.
Web Components were an ambitious proposal. Initial APIs were high-level and complex to implement (albeit for good reasons), which only added to contention and disagreement between vendors.
Google pushed forward, they sought feedback, gained community buy-in; but in hindsight, before other vendors shipped, usability was blocked.