> htmx is supposed to let you write semantic HTML, but it's obviously not semantic HTML/HTTP to respond HTTP 200 to incorrect user input.

It's perfectly semantic HTML, it just doesn't have to be semantic HTTP (as in, you don't have to push semantics to the HTTP level, keep it at the HTML level). Thinking that HTTP status codes should be semantically meaningful means you're still thinking of htmx endpoints are or must be API endpoints. That's a mistake.

▲

tacitusarc 2 days ago | parent [-]

You are, however, communicating over HTTP. If the protocol conventions cannot be used due to limitations of the encoding, it is reasonable to question the encoding design.

Another comment asserted HTMX can handle this, it just needs to be configured to do so. If that is the case, then I don’t see an actual issue.

	▲	mtlynch 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>Another comment asserted HTMX can handle this, it just needs to be configured to do so. If that is the case, then I don’t see an actual issue. You can, but it feels like you're sort of fighting the htmx library at that point. I do it, as it's the least bad option, but I generally find footguns with violating HTTP conventions (e.g., returning HTTP 200 for a bad request) or going outside the mainstream of a library (telling htmx that HTTP 400 can have a meaningful response body).