The put-down to me was where it said: "it's very easy to...", but failed to explain it beyond a few words. I'm relatively clever, but don't know exactly what they are talking about, and the lack of explanation with a statement of ease gives an implication that we should just know their solution.
That changes the message from an informative comment about alternative approaches into something the could be read as a dismissive rejection.
Now, a link to an article explaining the alternative approach... or even just one or two more explanatory sentences... would not come off that way. And maybe it is easy, but it would be better to just put up the facts, not judgments. Post an explanation and let the reader decide whether or not they think it is easy.
> The put-down to me was where it said: "it's very easy to...", but failed to explain it beyond a few words.
What do you mean by "failed to explain it beyond a few words"?
OP stated in no uncertain terms that this approach was followed in lit-html, provided a link to a page from lit's site where this approach is thoroughly explained, and if you really want to look closely at real-world implementations you already have the link to lit-html.
How much more do you want to demand from someone in order to point out in a web forum that someone made a mistake?
Also, what stops anyone from posting any question asking for ay clarification?
Or are we supposed to jump right onto the "I'm being persecuted" mode?
That changes the message from an informative comment about alternative approaches into something the could be read as a dismissive rejection.
Now, a link to an article explaining the alternative approach... or even just one or two more explanatory sentences... would not come off that way. And maybe it is easy, but it would be better to just put up the facts, not judgments. Post an explanation and let the reader decide whether or not they think it is easy.