Modifiers

[omrd]

Would it make more sense for HTML Elements modifiers to lose the .attribute syntax?

What I mean is going from this

div {
    p { "Hello" }
        .attributes(.id("maybe-fancy"))
        .attributes(.class("fancy"), when: isFancy)
}

To this

div {
    p { "Hello" }
        .id("maybe-fancy")
        .class("fancy", when: isFancy)
}

[sliemeobn]

could you elaborate why you think it would make more sense?
I'll try to explain my reasoning for the current shape below, but I am happy consider other opinions.

The current shape tries to make it clear when you are dealing with the "low-level" HTML primitives: lower-case element names and a rather "direct" mapping of HTML attributes. This is very intentional, it should stay close to what HTML would look like, and make it clear that these "modifiers" do nothing special, just set HTML attributes.

The idea is to leave room for built-in, higher level modifiers, that do not map to HTML directly.
eg: .key, .bindValue, .opacity, ...

Even further down the line I can see use having a catalog of high-level elements (eg: Button and a .buttonStyle(_:) modifier). If that future ever materializes, it will be good to not have the place littered with the "lower-level" stuff.

[omrd]

I was just thinking it's a bit superfluous but your explanation makes much more sense. I wonder, is it possible to do something like this?

div {
    p { "Hello" }
        .attributes {
             .id("maybe-fancy")
             .class("fancy", when: isFancy)
        }
}

This way it's clear we're calling HTML attributes but at the same time not having to write attributes for each one. I think readability might be better.

[sliemeobn]

just so we are on the same page, both the initializer and the .attributes modifier take lists/tuples.

so, with the current API, you would write something like

input(.type(.text), .placeholder("Add an item…"), .class("my-fancy-class"))

or, alternatively

div { "some content" }
  .attributes(.id("my-div"), .class("my-class"))

[omrd]

Yes I'm with you on that. I think for me, for whatever reason, I find the second syntax a bit easier to read but also don't want to write .attributes(...) over and over again. This really isn't a huge deal by any means. I am very impressed with this project and have always wanted something like this. Just thought maybe a suggestion, since it's early in the project and might be easier to implement.