9 ms·
Co-author here! I'll let the proposal mostly speak for itself but one recurring question it doesn't answer is: "how likely is any of this to happen?" My answer
by alexpetros 2y ago
Co-author here! I'll let the proposal mostly speak for itself but one recurring question it doesn't answer is: "how likely is any of this to happen?"
My answer is: I'm pretty optimistic! The people on WHATWG have been responsive and offered great feedback. These things take a long time but we're making steady progress so far, and the webpage linked here will have all the status updates. So, stay tuned.
- philosopher1234 2y agoIs it possible to see their feedback? Is it published somewhere public?
- theptip 2y agoHow much would HTMX internals change if these proposals were accepted? Is this a big simplification or a small amount of what HTMX covers? Similarly, any interesting ways you could see other libraries adopting these new options?
- recursivedoubts 2y agoi don't think it would change htmx at all, we'd probably keep the attribute namespaces separate just to avoid accidentally stomping on behavior i do think it would reduce and/or eliminate the need for htmx in many cases, which is a good thing: the big idea w/htmx is to push the idea of hypermedia and hypermedia controls further, and if those ideas make it into the web platform so much the better
- paulddraper 2y agoThis covers a lot of the common stuff. This is native HTMX, or at least a good chuck of the basics.
- ksec 2y agoThank You for the work. It is tedious and takes a long time. I know we are getting some traction on WHATWG. But do we have if Google or Apple have shown any interest? At the end you could still end up being on WHATWG and Chrome / Safari not supporting it.