@yogthos I find information in this post not exactly accurate. The biggest problem is that WebComponents are not a Chrome-only thing, but instead an accepted standard, though you could reasonably say it is sort of rubber-stamped. But still, it's a standard, and it is perfectly implementable in non-Chrome browsers (Firefox and Safari both ship with support for them).
The saving and archiving problem is hardly anything specific about WebComponents either. I don't even remember the last time "save" actually worked on a modern web page that is not just a bunch of text and pictures. This feature is simply poorly maintained in most of the browsers, and WebComponents won't make it worse or better. Similarly, web archiving has never worked quite well on so-called single-page web applications, and whether they use WebComponents is totally unrelated.
I do understand that adding such complexity to web standards isn't exactly helpful for smaller teams to enter the browser game. But I don't feel that the web was ever evolving in this direction, with WebComponents or without. Browsers have not been typical software for a really long time, instead they are closer to operating systems with rigorous sandboxing, which simply did not exist on desktop besides browsers. Is this a good direction to head for? I really do not know.
@PeterCxy thanks that's a good assessment of the situation, and I do agree with the benefits of standardizing something that everybody's doing already anyway in ad hoc fashion.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!