Status of the "manifest"

[jogibear9988]

@justinfagnani

What is the status of the manifest?
Are we at a stable v1.0?
What is about the open issues? Many uncommented...
Also the open Pulls, whats the state?
What is about "webcompoents.org"? Wasn't there a plan to rebuild the site with elements using this spec?
What is about google's own elements (like material web components), will they create a manifest?

[sonntag-philipp]

I intended to use this manifest as it was already contained in the starter projects of lit. After taking a look at the open issues and evaluating the json schema directly, I don't think it will be reliable.

Instead I think that JetBrains/Web-Types will be a more reliable foundation for further development, even though I hope that both of those standards will be merged into a single set of definitions.

To be clear, my goal is not to downplay the effort put in this manifest but much more to emphasize that new adopters of this standard are turning away from it even before trying just due to the unreliable maintenance, which would be pity for the time put into this project.

[thepassle]

The schema is at a stable v1, we see a lot of orgs/companies (like Adobe, Shoelace, ING, and others) adopting the schema, and npm downloads steadily going up 🙂

Consensus on the schema takes a lot of work and time and effort and discussion, so since the stable v1 this has naturally slowed down a bit.

[jogibear9988]

@thepassle yes, but I think in the manifest are a few big parts missing (the most problematic for me is: #96).
As I'm workin on a designer application (https://github.com/node-projects/web-component-designer), where I like to a components only by adding npm packages, I need information wich is currently missing in the manifest.

[justinfagnani]

#96 should be discussed in #96. We expect the manifest to evolve over time and have issues filed and discussed. It doesn't mean that we're not at v1 now.

In the spirit of addressing and cleaning up issues, I'll close this one.