|
|
|
|
|
by TonyPeakman
267 days ago
|
|
Thanks a lot for the detailed suggestions — this is super helpful. You’re right that symbols like +//@ aren’t valid in XML/XHTML, and the original idea was just to keep things as short and stackable as possible. But I see the value in a more standard, semantic form like lifecycle.load, control.value, event.click, meta.raw. It’s clearer, easier to search, and plays nicely with stricter environments. I’m leaning toward offering both: the current short symbols for quick prototyping, and a more verbose but standard form (potentially with dg- or dot-namespaced attributes) for projects that need stronger compatibility. Your idea of aligning the names with the terminology we already use makes a lot of sense. And thanks for pointing out the router example — you’re right, the docs only show the “all options” version. I’ll add a minimalist example alongside it so people can see the simple path too. Appreciate the thoughtful feedback — this gives me a clear direction for making dagger.js easier to use while staying standards-compliant. |
|
actually in recent weeks i have been thinking about building simple sites with just vanilla js, but with some custom functions to enable binding and routing which is the most important stuff. but then i'll probably need iteration, click events, and a few other things, and when i saw dagger.js i realized that my own collection of features would pretty much get me to where you are now...