That's how progressive enhancement works. The website should work fine if JS is disabled. Then it's faster via htmx if JS is enabled, and more so if the backend is tuned as well.
Because none of that is standard, none of that is understood by browsers, and requires HTMX to work.
Which is also besides the point of discussing whether or not HTMX invents its own templating, DSL, and requires the server to be aware of HTMX to to work properly.
I'll let you find any working examples yourself.
Most sites won't work or will be broken, too. Obviously You have to actually try and work on progressive enhancement, and not rely on marketing blurbs and promises of magic.
I wonder if people blindly defenfing their favorite thingd actually know anything about them.
I assure you I know quite a bit more than you when it comes to htmx and progressive enhancement, having built multiple progressively enhanced htmx apps that work almost exactly the same without JS.
Yup, the unworking hamburger menu on the website preaching about progressive enhancement and built entirely with this framework "has nothing to do with htmx".
All examples on HTMX site that we're told will just work "with full page reload" and that don't work also have nothing to do with HTMX.
HTMX is magical progressive enhancement "The things work, albeit with a full page load" somehow are broken on HTMX site itself and on most sites built with it, but all this also has nothing to do with it. Because "things just work"
And now you're repeating what I already said and somehow pretending it's an argument with something I didn't say.
>> Which is also besides the point of discussing whether or not HTMX invents its own templating, DSL, and requires the server to be aware of HTMX to to work properly. reply
> The things work, albeit with a full page load. As one of the ancestor comments said: progressive enhancement.
Oh. It turns out things don't work, neither on HTMX's own site, nor on most sites built with it.
Why do you keep arguing theory when reality is right there for anyone to see?
> Your criticism is basically that it’s not perfect, so it’s worthless.
No. My criticism is that HtMX authors and proponents keep presenting HTMX as something it objectively isn't despite actual verifiable reality.
I literally said what I mean in my first comment which started this pointless thread.
As I said in a sibling comment:
At this point I'm tired of pointless arguing with reality-denying people. Adieu.
Good luck with your confirmation bias fallacies though.