Directive doesn't work when I which the version of Angular to 1.0.1 to 1.2.27 - angularjs

Question

The following could be run in demo here.
this is html:
<div ng-controller="MyCtrl">
<h2>Parent Scope</h2>
<input ng-model="foo"> <i>// Update to see how parent scope interacts with component scope</i>
<br><br>
<!-- attribute-foo binds to a DOM attribute which is always
a string. That is why we are wrapping it in curly braces so
that it can be interpolated.
-->
<my-component attribute-foo="{{foo}}" binding-foo="foo"
isolated-expression-foo="updateFoo(newFoo)" >
<h2>Attribute</h2>
<div>
<strong>get:</strong> {{isolatedAttributeFoo}}
</div>
<div>
<strong>set:</strong> <input ng-model="isolatedAttributeFoo">
<i>// This does not update the parent scope.</i>
</div>
<h2>Binding</h2>
<div>
<strong>get:</strong> {{isolatedBindingFoo}}
</div>
<div>
<strong>set:</strong> <input ng-model="isolatedBindingFoo">
<i>// This does update the parent scope.</i>
</div>
<h2>Expression</h2>
<div>
<input ng-model="isolatedFoo">
<button class="btn" ng-click="isolatedExpressionFoo({newFoo:isolatedFoo})">Submit</button>
<i>// And this calls a function on the parent scope.</i>
</div>
</my-component>
</div>
And this is js:
var myModule = angular.module('myModule', [])
.directive('myComponent', function () {
return {
restrict:'E',
scope:{
/* NOTE: Normally I would set my attributes and bindings
to be the same name but I wanted to delineate between
parent and isolated scope. */
isolatedAttributeFoo:'#attributeFoo',
isolatedBindingFoo:'=bindingFoo',
isolatedExpressionFoo:'&'
}
};
})
.controller('MyCtrl', ['$scope', function ($scope) {
$scope.foo = 'Hello!';
$scope.updateFoo = function (newFoo) {
$scope.foo = newFoo;
}
}]);
This should be a good example for three kinds of scope binding in directives.However, it just doesn't work when I try to switch a higher angular version - (1.2.27). I suspect the shadow of the inherited scope within the directive, but I'm not sure of it.

Answer 1

This isn't going to work the way you expect. Isolated Scopes are created and provided to the Link, Compile, and Template portions of a Directive. However, the HTML within the Element itself is not actually part of the Directive. Those HTML portions are still bound to the parent $scope. If you have a tendancy to name your isolated scope objects the same, you may have just been working against the $scope unintentionally and not noticed any ill effect. If your HTML was in a Template rather than inside the Element, it would access the isolate scope.
As an example, in the HTML that is inline in the Element, you can call updateFoo(), but that would not be possible from inside a Template