On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 17:26, Alex Kahn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Do folks agree? Should true and false be expressed explicitly as
> > values for HTML5 data-attributes?
Well, I don't see why an element couldn't just be written like <img
src="..." data-foo>.
The presence of "data-foo" attribute means true, its absence means false.
It's all about how you use these attributes—you define their semantics
themselves depending on your needs.
You don't gain much by forcing yourself to use "true" vs. "false" as values.
This is how you would check for truth in both cases with JavaScript:
element.getAttribute('data-foo') != null
// with values:
element.getAttribute('data-foo') == "true"
And in CSS:
img[data-foo]
/* with values: */
img[data-foo="true"]
The only use-case for having attribute values is when you need to
differentiate between 3 states: true, false, or nil (absence of the
attribute). This is rare, and you can achieve it without the patch by
casting boolean to string:
%img{ :data => { :foo => obj.predicate?.to_s } }
So you see, we already have the ability to have "true" and "false" as
values—your patch is only removing the ability to have attributes without
values.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
