Pros of dom-examples

• More comprehensive coverage of DOM APIs and features
• Better organized with clear categorization of examples
• Regularly updated with new web platform features

Cons of dom-examples

• Less focus on cutting-edge Chrome-specific features
• Fewer examples related to Progressive Web Apps (PWAs)

Code Comparison

dom-examples (IndexedDB example):

const dbName = "MyTestDatabase";
const request = indexedDB.open(dbName, 2);

request.onerror = (event) => {
  console.error("Database error: " + event.target.error);
};

samples (Service Worker example):

if ('serviceWorker' in navigator) {
  navigator.serviceWorker.register('/sw.js').then(function(registration) {
    console.log('Service Worker registered with scope:', registration.scope);
  }).catch(function(error) {
    console.log('Service Worker registration failed:', error);
  });
}

Summary

dom-examples provides a wider range of DOM-related examples and is well-organized, making it an excellent resource for learning web APIs. samples focuses more on Chrome-specific features and emerging web technologies. Both repositories offer valuable examples for web developers, with dom-examples being more suitable for general DOM manipulation and samples being better for exploring cutting-edge Chrome features and PWAs.

Pros of web-components-examples

• Focused specifically on Web Components, providing a comprehensive set of examples
• Well-documented with detailed explanations for each example
• Maintained by MDN, ensuring high-quality and up-to-date content

Cons of web-components-examples

• Limited scope compared to samples, which covers a broader range of web technologies
• Fewer examples overall, as it's focused solely on Web Components
• May not include cutting-edge or experimental features as quickly as samples

Code Comparison

web-components-examples:

<template id="element-details-template">
  <details>
    <summary>
      <span>
        <code class="name">&lt;<slot name="element-name">NEED NAME</slot>&gt;</code>
        <i class="desc"><slot name="description">NEED DESCRIPTION</slot></i>
      </span>
    </summary>
    <div class="attributes">
      <h4>Attributes</h4>
      <slot name="attributes"><p>None</p></slot>
    </div>
  </details>
</template>

samples:

if ('serviceWorker' in navigator) {
  navigator.serviceWorker.register('/service-worker.js')
  .then(function(registration) {
    console.log('Service Worker registered with scope:', registration.scope);
  }).catch(function(error) {
    console.log('Service Worker registration failed:', error);
  });
}

Pros of wpt

• Comprehensive test suite covering a wide range of web platform features
• Collaborative effort with contributions from multiple browser vendors and web developers
• Regularly updated to reflect the latest web standards and specifications

Cons of wpt

• More complex setup and execution process compared to simpler sample repositories
• Requires more technical knowledge to understand and contribute to the test suite
• May be overwhelming for developers looking for quick, specific examples

Code Comparison

samples:

function showNotification() {
  Notification.requestPermission().then((result) => {
    if (result === 'granted') {
      new Notification('Hello World!');
    }
  });
}

wpt:

test(() => {
  assert_true('Notification' in self, 'Notification API supported');
  assert_equals(typeof Notification.requestPermission, 'function', 'requestPermission is a function');
  assert_equals(typeof Notification.permission, 'string', 'permission is a string');
}, 'Notification API basic functionality');

The samples repository provides practical, ready-to-use code examples, while wpt focuses on comprehensive testing of web platform features. samples is more suitable for developers looking for quick implementation references, whereas wpt is essential for ensuring cross-browser compatibility and adherence to web standards.

Pros of html

• Comprehensive documentation of HTML standard
• Collaborative effort with contributions from multiple organizations
• Regularly updated to reflect the latest HTML specifications

Cons of html

• Focuses solely on HTML specification, lacking practical examples
• May be overwhelming for beginners due to its technical nature
• Less frequent updates compared to samples

Code Comparison

html:

<section>
  <h1>Example Heading</h1>
  <p>This is a paragraph in the HTML specification.</p>
</section>

samples:

<div class="example">
  <h2>Chrome API Demo</h2>
  <button id="startDemo">Start Demo</button>
  <script src="demo.js"></script>
</div>

Summary

The html repository serves as the official source for HTML specifications, offering comprehensive documentation for web developers and browser implementers. It provides a collaborative platform for discussing and evolving the HTML standard.

In contrast, the samples repository focuses on practical examples and demonstrations of various web technologies, particularly those related to Chrome and its APIs. It offers a more hands-on approach for developers looking to implement specific features or learn through code examples.

While html is essential for understanding the core HTML language, samples is more suitable for developers seeking practical implementations and real-world usage of web technologies in Chrome.

Pros of webcomponents

• Focuses specifically on Web Components, providing a comprehensive resource for this technology
• Includes polyfills and libraries to support broader browser compatibility
• Offers more in-depth documentation and examples for Web Components implementation

Cons of webcomponents

• Limited scope compared to samples, which covers a wider range of web technologies
• May not be as frequently updated as samples, which is maintained by the Chrome team
• Less diverse set of examples and use cases for general web development

Code Comparison

samples:

navigator.serviceWorker.register('service-worker.js')
  .then(function(registration) {
    console.log('Service Worker registered successfully.');
  }).catch(function(error) {
    console.log('Service Worker registration failed:', error);
  });

webcomponents:

class MyElement extends HTMLElement {
  constructor() {
    super();
    this.attachShadow({ mode: 'open' });
    this.shadowRoot.innerHTML = `<p>Hello, Web Components!</p>`;
  }
}
customElements.define('my-element', MyElement);

Pros of webcomponentsjs

• Focused specifically on Web Components polyfills and utilities
• More comprehensive support for Web Components across browsers
• Actively maintained with regular updates

Cons of webcomponentsjs

• Limited to Web Components technology
• Less diverse range of examples and use cases
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

webcomponentsjs:

import '@webcomponents/webcomponentsjs/webcomponents-loader.js';

class MyElement extends HTMLElement {
  connectedCallback() {
    this.innerHTML = '<p>Hello, Web Components!</p>';
  }
}
customElements.define('my-element', MyElement);

samples:

// No equivalent code sample as samples covers a wide range of Chrome features
// and doesn't focus specifically on Web Components

Summary

webcomponentsjs is a specialized library for Web Components support, offering comprehensive polyfills and utilities. It's ideal for projects heavily focused on Web Components but may have a steeper learning curve.

samples provides a broader range of examples for various Chrome features, making it more suitable for developers exploring different Chrome capabilities. However, it lacks the depth of Web Components support found in webcomponentsjs.

Choose webcomponentsjs for dedicated Web Components projects, and samples for exploring diverse Chrome features and APIs.