- From: Matthew Phillips <matthew@bitovi.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:37:03 -0400
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHm1x+Z4x123DZ-z_y_D3NN8pmMzSbGTT9kCP2b0+6T3Mxr=1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Here's a presentation on their data-binding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMBcqwvYA0&feature=youtu.be&t=12m39s However, like I said, they allow this in their templates but do not write it to the dom (they do not call .setAttribute or attr.cloneNode()). So it's not an issue for them. But I think it's something that should be considered to allow as others will want to do similar things and may want to write to the DOM (as I do). On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > Do you have a link for how this looks and works in Angular 2? If what > their doing would throw a wrench in the effort to simplify Attr, it > would be good to at least discuss it with them. > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Matthew Phillips <matthew@bitovi.com> > wrote: > > We were planning on including it on an upcoming release of CanJS but > looks > > like we'll have to work-around it for now. I'm not sure if this is a > common > > pattern or not. Angular 2 is introducing this type of syntax for data > > binding (but in their case I don't believe they are writing out the > > attributes) so it might become more popular for other frameworks in the > > future. > > > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Interesting, I didn't know there was a discrepancy between the > characters > >> accepted in the HTML parser and contexts like Element.setAttribute(). It > >> doesn't sound useful at all to limit setAttribute() more strictly than > the > >> parser. > >> > >> I've noted the problem on the tracking bug for Attr simplification in > DOM: > >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26609#c10 > >> > >> Matthew, is the code that call cloneNode() on Attr objects your own, or > is > >> this a pattern one should expect to find a lot in the wild? It seems > that of > >> all the things inherited from Node to Attr, cloneNode() might be the > most > >> used, because apparently it's the safe way to copy attributes from one > >> element to another. > >> > >> Philip > >> > >> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Matthew Phillips <matthew@bitovi.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Yes, this is exactly what I am doing. > >>> > >>> On May 25, 2015 11:43 AM, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 5/25/15 4:29 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not quite following, how are you setting the attribute name (not > >>>>> value) to "[foo]"? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> data:text/html,<div [foo]=bar> > >>>> > >>>> or equivalent with the innerHTML setter. > >>>> > >>>> Once such an attribute is created by the parser, it can currently be > >>>> cloned and set on other elements via Attr APIs, right? And such an > >>>> attribute cannot be created via setAttribute/setAttributeNS. > >>>> > >>>> -Boris > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Bitovi > > Development | Design | Training | Open Source > -- Bitovi Development | Design | Training | Open Source
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2015 17:37:31 UTC