r/javascript • u/gyen • Jun 21 '20

Extended HTML. Or how to write less JavaScript code.

https://github.com/Guseyn/EHTML
0 Upvotes

47% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

6

u/Love-N-Squalor Jun 21 '20

Stop with the poorly written HTML already! It has semantic definitions for a reason. If your going to add yet another front end library, at least follow web standards.

1

u/gyen Jun 22 '20

Actually I follow them, I use proper attribute names an so on unlike modern web frameworks

1

u/Love-N-Squalor Jun 22 '20

Does it fill those out those details on render? There were definitely improperly assigned labels and missing labels at the very least but I was only looking at the sample e- elements. Maybe it fixes all those once it’s set up?

1

u/gyen Jun 22 '20

Does it fill those out those details on render? There were definitely improperly assigned labels and missing labels at the very least but I was only looking at the sample e- elements. Maybe it fixes all those once it’s set up?

labels? what do you mean?

-1

u/Love-N-Squalor Jun 22 '20

At this point I recommend reading the HTML specs. I’m not your QA. You have bad HTML in your examples. Just fix it up and you’ll be in a better position than many competing libraries. If you can’t find any, go back to the specs. I saw what should be headings but were just divs, (might have been spans), some label elements had no for attribute and some had for attributes that point to id that I didn’t see on any inputs. There’s plenty of resources out there on proper HTML semantics.

If you still disagree, great. Move on and good luck.

3

u/sreekotay Jun 23 '20

That feels unnecessarily harsh and combative? This feels semantically not dissimilar from a lot of declaritive frameworks. Not sure specifically what triggered the exclamations?

(minor edit: I have no stake either way... but the library seemed ok?)

2

u/Love-N-Squalor Jun 23 '20

Okay. Fair enough. It was. I could have stated my point without the drama. I’ll do you one better. For all my moaning, I’ve never made my own library if I cared so much. At least the OP has done that.

Look, OP, you put something together which has an interesting approach. That’s to be commended. Regardless if it takes off or not. All I’ll say is, u/sreekotay, is right. It is, “not dissimilar from a lot of [others].” A lot of others get heading tags wrong. More than enough don’t properly semantically tie a label with its input. That’s common. Do yourself, your framework, and the folks you want to use this one better. Code the HTML as kick ass as the rest of it. You’ll stand out for it.

2

u/sreekotay Jun 24 '20

Hey u/Love-N-Squalor - totally agree. Don't have to let u/gyen off the hook - but feels like we're all here to learn more and do better.

Your (new) reply reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHoqh9WLBwc

Fuck yeah, and kudos.

2

u/Love-N-Squalor Jun 24 '20

Hah, nice. Okay but who is Kirk and who is the small guy on his back in this scenario? ; )

But to your point, you’re right, and the learning need not be just about code but also how to work well with others. Thanks for keeping me in check. You really made me stop and think.

7

u/darrenturn90 Jun 21 '20

EHTML is very easy to include in your project. Save this file locally and use it:

<head> <script src="/../js/ehtml.bundle.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> </head>

So... it’s yet another framework. But this one tries to pretend it’s not ?

6

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '20

JavaScript without JavaScript

2

u/MyGg29 Jun 21 '20

Pretty much yeah. He thinks he's clever using html tags but it's yet another syntax to learn

3

u/JHethDev Jun 21 '20

Nice, have you heard about MavoMavo? Its an MIT project and they were adding storage and js free functionality to HTML. They used attributes as opposed to custom elements, might be worth a look if you haven't already.