Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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 logic to HTML colorizing syntax checkers in our IDEs is all.

[0]: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/syntax.html#syntax-attribut...

To emphasize what you are saying, on multiple occasions the Angular team has said that they chose this new syntax because it is valid.

It's illegal. Go to your console and type el.setAttribute("(foo)", "bar") and see what happens.

No it is not. See the discussion here: https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/133

What there contradicts what I said? I'm aware of innerHTML hacks that make it possible to work around but those are not valid attribute names. I'm not even against the syntax; i like it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is invalid html.

Parent quotes the W3 Spec to prove that it's legal, and your response is "it's illegal because $BROWSER say's so"?

I trust the spec more than an implementation.

The parent didn't quote the spec, they quoted a GitHub issue with 71 participants. If you want to post a link to the spec text please do.

If true I'm not sure it matters if every browser throws an exception.

User pfooti's comment referenced the specification[1]. You said that a browsers' implementation of the DOM API proves that it is illegal. I then linked to an issue with a detailed discussion of how the DOM API isn't consistent with itself, much less the HTML specification.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact