They aren't. This is not good API design
<button data-on-click__window__debounce.500ms.leading="$foo = ''"></button>
Snide vaguely dismissive remarks don't make such remarks true.
> If the ideas of Datastar are fine to all of us
Who's us? Are these "us" in the room with us right now?
This wilful insanity is completely incomprehensible to me (HTMX and lit are also fully infected with it): "Oh no, we are just HTML, we can't do anything" while literally doing tons of things outside of HTML.
Again: you literally have a custom Javascript-like DSL in Datastar. Use that.
It's like the "it's just HTML" or "it's HTML-compliant" mantra somehow damages the brain, or something.
Edit: this custom JS-like DSL is so prominent and such a crucial part of Datastar, that it's referenced in the very first paragraph of reference: https://data-star.dev/reference
Oh, look, your HTML-spec-compliant thing in which it is apparently impossible to do anything outside data-* attributes somehow calls external functions, and updates signals, and reads signals, and does all sorts of things:
<div data-signals-result>
<input data-bind-foo
data-on-input="myfunction(el, $foo)"
data-on-mycustomevent__window="$result = evt.detail.value"
>
<span data-text="$result"></span>
</div>
Why isn't it a good API design?
> Snide vaguely dismissive remarks don't make such remarks true.
Agreed! I don't believe I was doing anything of the sort.
> Who's us?
People on this thread.
But again, the API design woes are subjective and I think it's perfectly fine to iterate on getting this to a nicer state.
"Wrong" to me suggests a gap in the understanding of fundamentals or of how things work. If the ideas of Datastar are fine to all of us, and our issues with it are ergnomics, then that can be a more focused discussion.