11–20 of 102 posts
Remember when we were worried about the semantic purity of our HTML.
Remember separation of concerns ? Fuck that, let's just mash code and markup together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know that "semantic" is what you mean here. Semantics in HTML is about exposing the meaning of content through the DOM. Adding data-binding via attributes doesn't change that at all. Name still encodes just as much semantics as Name I think what you might have meant, as mariusmg mentioned in a sibling comment, is "separation of concerns"? Personally I think that has diminishing returns as your application get…
I think it's more like "syntactic" then semantic. Is syntatically valid HTML, although ng-model may not be a legal attribute name in standard HTML. On the other hand: Isn't even syntactically valid HTML. It kind of rubs me the wrong way too, although I don't know if it matters in practice, although I'm not sure it doesn't either. It does seem ugly.
Granted, it isn't necessarily what I'd expect to be legal, but it doesn't look illegal either. We may just need to add some logic to HTML colorizing syntax checkers in our IDEs is all.
[0]: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/syntax.html#syntax-attribut...
I have been evaluating writing some new applications in Angular at work and was quickly turned away from it because before today the actual migration path seemed very unclear. Without a migration path, picking v1 for a new application at this point would be silly, and 2 is completely unready for production. Hearing that they are really planning on making it more or less "backwards compatible" is definitely a smart mo…
Since Angular 2 was announced, I had the feeling that I picked the wrong framework for our product with Angular 1, and was feeling regrets about that choice towards my team, to have blocked them with a framework without future. Knowing that we'll be able to slowly move our app to Angular 2, one feature at a time, is certainly the best news I've had in a while.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more like "syntactic" then semantic. Is syntatically valid HTML, although ng-model may not be a legal attribute name in standard HTML. On the other hand: Isn't even syntactically valid HTML. It kind of rubs me the wrong way too, although I don't know if it matters in practice, although I'm not sure it doesn't either. It does seem ugly.
I'm not sure you are correct. According to the w3 spec for HTML attributes [0], html element attribute names must consist of one or more characters other than the space characters, U+0000 NULL, """, "'", ">", "/", "=", the control characters, and any characters that are not defined by Unicode. Granted, it isn't necessarily what I'd expect to be legal, but it doesn't look illegal either. We may just need to add some l…
Everybody knows what other project i'm talking about.
Remember when we were worried about the semantic purity of our HTML.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since Angular 2 was announced, I had the feeling that I picked the wrong framework for our product with Angular 1, and was feeling regrets about that choice towards my team, to have blocked them with a framework without future. Knowing that we'll be able to slowly move our app to Angular 2, one feature at a time, is certainly the best news I've had in a while.
BTW, why do I always feel like betting in a horse race when choosing a web framework/library? Hoping it'll be maintained long enough, hoping it'll not be deprecated after 6 months for the new cool kid...
The first guy I heard talking about it was like "It was made by an underdog at google" and "We often had the feeling about hitting a dead end when developing with it, but it was always because we were using it wrong" which both sounded strange to me.
I used ExtJS, Ember and React. And never switched away from them because it wasn't maintained anymore. It just happened that people preferred to use new frameworks on new projects.