4 ms·

I'm not sure you are correct. According to the w3 spec for HTML attributes [0], html element attribute names must consist of one or more characters other than t

by pfooti 11y ago

I'm not sure you are correct. According to the w3 spec for HTML attributes [0], html element attribute names must consist of one or more characters other than the space characters, U+0000 NULL, """, "'", ">", "/", "=", the control characters, and any characters that are not defined by Unicode. Granted, it isn't necessarily what I'd expect to be legal, but it doesn't look illegal either. We may just need to add some logic to HTML colorizing syntax checkers in our IDEs is all. [0]: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/syntax.html#syntax-attributes http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/syntax.html#syntax-attribut...

jrochkind1 11y ago
interesting!
joshuacc 11y ago
To emphasize what you are saying, on multiple occasions the Angular team has said that they chose this new syntax because it is valid.
Touche 11y ago
It's illegal. Go to your console and type el.setAttribute("(foo)", "bar") and see what happens.
- joshuacc 11y ago
  No it is not. See the discussion here: https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/133 https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/133
  - Touche 11y ago
    What there contradicts what I said? I'm aware of innerHTML hacks that make it possible to work around but those are not valid attribute names. I'm not even against the syntax; i like it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is invalid html.
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      Parent quotes the W3 Spec to prove that it's legal, and your response is "it's illegal because $BROWSER say's so"? I trust the spec more than an implementation.
      - Touche 11y ago
        The parent didn't quote the spec, they quoted a GitHub issue with 71 participants. If you want to post a link to the spec text please do. If true I'm not sure it matters if every browser throws an exception.
        joshuacc 11y ago
        User pfooti's comment referenced the specification[1]. You said that a browsers' implementation of the DOM API proves that it is illegal. I then linked to an issue with a detailed discussion of how the DOM API isn't consistent with itself, much less the HTML specification. [1]:http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/syntax.html#syntax-attributes http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/syntax.html#syntax-attribut...

by pfooti 11y ago

jrochkind1 11y ago

interesting!

joshuacc 11y ago

To emphasize what you are saying, on multiple occasions the Angular team has said that they chose this new syntax because it is valid.

Touche 11y ago

It's illegal. Go to your console and type el.setAttribute("(foo)", "bar") and see what happens.

joshuacc 11y ago
No it is not. See the discussion here: https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/133 https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/133
- Touche 11y ago
  What there contradicts what I said? I'm aware of innerHTML hacks that make it possible to work around but those are not valid attribute names. I'm not even against the syntax; i like it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is invalid html.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    Parent quotes the W3 Spec to prove that it's legal, and your response is "it's illegal because $BROWSER say's so"? I trust the spec more than an implementation.
    - Touche 11y ago
      The parent didn't quote the spec, they quoted a GitHub issue with 71 participants. If you want to post a link to the spec text please do. If true I'm not sure it matters if every browser throws an exception.
      - joshuacc 11y ago
        User pfooti's comment referenced the specification[1]. You said that a browsers' implementation of the DOM API proves that it is illegal. I then linked to an issue with a detailed discussion of how the DOM API isn't consistent with itself, much less the HTML specification. [1]:http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/syntax.html#syntax-attributes http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/syntax.html#syntax-attribut...