intercooler.js worth adding to libraries?

[1cg]

Hi There,

I don't want to presume that intercooler.js matches up exactly with what you are outlining here, so before I create a pull request I'd like to get your opinion:

http://intercoolerjs.org

It allows you to add ajax to your system using HTML attributes that follow and extend the standard HTML/HTTP model.

[stilkov]

It seems to me there’s a fundamental difference: The intercooler example <a ic-post-to="/button_click">Click Me!</a> would not work as intended if JS were disabled (or not yet loaded or not yet available for whatever reason). It proposes a syntax that’s an alternative to standard HTML, it doesn’t extend it. So I’m not sure it follows the same philosophy.

A different (and more ROCA-compliant) approach would be something like <a ic-some-additional-info="..." href="/button_click">Click Me!</a> because that would preserve HTML semantics and add fancy behavior progressively.

[1cg]

That's reasonable. There is the ic-enhance attribute, which acts more inline with this philosophy:

http://intercoolerjs.org/attributes/ic-enhance.html

Also might be worth looking at turbolinks:

https://github.com/turbolinks/turbolinks

[mechanoid]

Hi, to me the standard behaviour described by that library leads people really a bit in a different direction. Especially extending anchor links to send a post or a put changes the behaviour largely from what the link is doing without js.

Giving a look to the guide, yes, for sure there are some functionalities that can be seen as ROCA compatible, but in large in my opinion it is not.

Regarding turbolinks, which is around quite a while might really something for the list. Pjax does basically the similar thing