|
|
|
|
|
|
by dtagames
1512 days ago
|
|
|
I still don't understand the objection. Your example of invalid Lit is something I would never write. Lit is perfectly helpful without it. What makes you say the .value and @click attributes are invalid? In some older HTML spec, you mean? They certainly work correctly in modern browsers. You can definitely mix data binding with regular HTML. It might be "invalid" according to a spec that makes no difference. The point of all of this is to write apps that work and can be debugged. What is the rallying cry against Lit, exactly? |
|
|
Please re-read what I wrote in my very first comment
> What makes you say the .value and @click attributes are invalid?
Just checked the spec, you're right they are valid. Hm, I was sure they weren't. Won't dig through the history to see if this changed :)
However, "Authors must not use elements, attributes, or attribute values that are not permitted by this specification or other applicable specifications, as doing so makes it significantly harder for the language to be extended in the future.", https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#elements
So I'd say they are still not okay on existing HTML elements
> It might be "invalid" according to a spec that makes no difference.
That is a very bad stance to take. "Invalid to the spec, but who cares".
> What is the rallying cry against Lit, exactly?
There's no rallying cry against lit. Stop. Inventing. Words. And. Meanings. I. Never. Said. Or. Implied.
There's a single very literal comment I made with links to support that statement.
I'm out of this discussion. I have other things to do with my life than keep saying "I never said what you think I said" over, and over, and over again.