It would be really nice if the script would adopt the emmet/zencoding syntax for writing html elements. There probably already is a js library that does this although I can't seem to find it :)
I think creating nodes in javascript is a nogo, keep your html in your templates and just read the templates from js and there you can refer to nodes to do whatever you want in js.
But as always there are exceptions to the rule, and then this lib may come in handy.
el was shorthand for element. I wasn't aware of laconic until after I wrote this... I'm simply learning javascript and thought this would be a nice way to do it..
Apologies, I shouldn't have leaped to conclusions. However, from what I can see it is very similar as laconic, from the interface to the implementation. Laconic also has the advantage of most tags being predefined as methods, and a much longer burn-in and maturity. Not to detract from your efforts, but I'd probably recommend most people go with that if they're looking for something to rely on for practical use right now.
Keep at it, though! Maybe you can find a way to improve laconic, or to differentiate your own library. It's fun and a good way to learn, regardless.
Noob question here. Does it escape content? I find that incredibly important but I don't see it mentioned anywhere.
And what about the alternatives? Yesterday (in the "The DOM isn't slow. You are." article) there was a talk about laconic and crel. Do those escape content?
By the way, HTML encoding is fairly simple, you just have to be sure you get it right. This is a function for it that I include in most projects where I don't already have something like jQuery or laconic: https://gist.github.com/jrajav/5204669
I've only recently started to dabble with javascript and its pitfalls such as XSS attacks. Using jQuery was the only solution I found to escape user generated and that gist will come in handy when I don't want to depend on that framework. Thank you for that.
Or... you could stop trying to be Mr. Fancypants and just write HTML.
For almost 20 years now I've seen projects like this come and go. They go because they're worthless. They might seem helpful (hey! we can use one language to do everything!) but in reality they break the cardinal rule of not using the right tool for the job.
23 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 54.6 ms ] threadThat said, I think the API could be a little less verbose, but then I'm biased towards https://github.com/KoryNunn/crel :P
http://docs.emmet.io/abbreviations/
But as always there are exceptions to the rule, and then this lib may come in handy.
HTML wasn't an option in something so dynamic.
I guess all I'm saying is, there are use-cases where it's fine
Another option would be to use something like mustache and precomile your templates to javascript functions which you could use.
A reverse jQuery of sorts
It even hijacks the 'el' naming convention for it.
Keep at it, though! Maybe you can find a way to improve laconic, or to differentiate your own library. It's fun and a good way to learn, regardless.
And what about the alternatives? Yesterday (in the "The DOM isn't slow. You are." article) there was a talk about laconic and crel. Do those escape content?
[1]: https://github.com/joestelmach/laconic/blob/master/laconic.j...
[2]: https://github.com/markgandolfo/el.js/blob/master/el.js#L48
By the way, HTML encoding is fairly simple, you just have to be sure you get it right. This is a function for it that I include in most projects where I don't already have something like jQuery or laconic: https://gist.github.com/jrajav/5204669
For almost 20 years now I've seen projects like this come and go. They go because they're worthless. They might seem helpful (hey! we can use one language to do everything!) but in reality they break the cardinal rule of not using the right tool for the job.