3 ms·

I like unpoly a lot, Henning is a perfect gentleman, but the first check in on intercooler.js was before the first check in on unpoly: https://github.com/bigsk

I like unpoly a lot, Henning is a perfect gentleman, but the first check in on intercooler.js was before the first check in on unpoly: https://github.com/bigskysoftware/intercooler-js/graphs/contributors https://github.com/bigskysoftware/intercooler-js/graphs/cont... https://github.com/unpoly/unpoly/graphs/contributors https://github.com/unpoly/unpoly/graphs/contributors I'm happy to change the headers htmx is young enough to get away with it. Would you like to issue a pull request?

fastball 6y ago
Fair point – though some might say if you start over in a new repo then you have reset the clock ;). In all honestly though, wasn't trying to imply that this project ripped off Unpoly or anything, just wanted to mention a similar project. Perhaps poor phrasing on my part. As to a PR for the headers – I might just take you up on that!
- recursivedoubts 6y ago
  it's all good, and please: if there is a better standard for me to follow, now is the time to implement it. You deserve the credit for bringing it to my attention, and the code base is pretty easy to navigate.
- laingc 6y ago
  I read nothing but good intent in your comment, so this is not me throwing stones, but one comment I would make is that I think using the term "prior art" - coming as it does from patent law - carries an overtone of "I am implying that you might have ripped off someone else's idea". It's clear that this is not what you intended, but I think from the response from the creator, that was the tone that you accidentally conveyed. Just a thought for the future :-).
benatkin 6y ago
I'm not sure about changing the headers. X- is a widely accepted convention. In the RFC also says this: > SHOULD NOT prefix their parameter names with "X-" or similar constructs. It doesn't spell out exactly what would be considered a "similar construct", but I think "HX-" might count as a similar construct. There's no good way to implement the feature you want that would satisfy all reasonable interpretations of that RFC, so switching to "HX-" would be a half-measure. I understood exactly what was meant by X-HX- and I think it's a good design. Still, HX- is shorter and about as intuitive as X-HX- so I think it might still be the way to go, even though IMO that RFC isn't a good enough reason to change it.
- fastball 6y ago
  I think the spirit of the RFC is mostly about complications arising if such headers ever became standardized, but also that the "X-" just doesn't add any value – it's a convention without a purpose and just makes headers longer. In fact, it arguably becomes less useful the more people use it. So I think it's better for new projects to drop the "X-". On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to prepend with "HX-" because these headers apply to functionality that is specifically related to the capabilities of this library (or similar libs). It is highly improbable that this syntax would ever become standardized in either the HTML or HTTP specs, but if it did, the HX in front of headers makes sense given that the tag attributes are also prepended with an HX. From an entirely stylistic perspective, I also think that shoving an "X-" in front of all your headers is ugly (ugliness can of course be justified by usefulness, but as stated above I don't think that applies here). But of course these are just my thoughts on the matter, others might like "X-", though I'll admit I don't know why you would.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

fastball 6y ago

Fair point – though some might say if you start over in a new repo then you have reset the clock ;). In all honestly though, wasn't trying to imply that this project ripped off Unpoly or anything, just wanted to mention a similar project. Perhaps poor phrasing on my part. As to a PR for the headers – I might just take you up on that!

recursivedoubts 6y ago
it's all good, and please: if there is a better standard for me to follow, now is the time to implement it. You deserve the credit for bringing it to my attention, and the code base is pretty easy to navigate.
laingc 6y ago
I read nothing but good intent in your comment, so this is not me throwing stones, but one comment I would make is that I think using the term "prior art" - coming as it does from patent law - carries an overtone of "I am implying that you might have ripped off someone else's idea". It's clear that this is not what you intended, but I think from the response from the creator, that was the tone that you accidentally conveyed. Just a thought for the future :-).

benatkin 6y ago

I'm not sure about changing the headers. X- is a widely accepted convention. In the RFC also says this: > SHOULD NOT prefix their parameter names with "X-" or similar constructs. It doesn't spell out exactly what would be considered a "similar construct", but I think "HX-" might count as a similar construct. There's no good way to implement the feature you want that would satisfy all reasonable interpretations of that RFC, so switching to "HX-" would be a half-measure. I understood exactly what was meant by X-HX- and I think it's a good design. Still, HX- is shorter and about as intuitive as X-HX- so I think it might still be the way to go, even though IMO that RFC isn't a good enough reason to change it.

fastball 6y ago
I think the spirit of the RFC is mostly about complications arising if such headers ever became standardized, but also that the "X-" just doesn't add any value – it's a convention without a purpose and just makes headers longer. In fact, it arguably becomes less useful the more people use it. So I think it's better for new projects to drop the "X-". On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to prepend with "HX-" because these headers apply to functionality that is specifically related to the capabilities of this library (or similar libs). It is highly improbable that this syntax would ever become standardized in either the HTML or HTTP specs, but if it did, the HX in front of headers makes sense given that the tag attributes are also prepended with an HX. From an entirely stylistic perspective, I also think that shoving an "X-" in front of all your headers is ugly (ugliness can of course be justified by usefulness, but as stated above I don't think that applies here). But of course these are just my thoughts on the matter, others might like "X-", though I'll admit I don't know why you would.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]