[typo] Switch To HAML?

Piers Cawley pdcawley at bofh.org.uk
Mon Feb 12 05:49:56 EST 2007


Frederic de Villamil <neuro at 7el.net> writes:

> Le 12 févr. 07 à 02:20, Kevin Ballard a écrit :
>
>> On Feb 2, 2007, at 12:55 PM, mathew wrote:
>>
>>> I agree. I think HAML is a dumb idea, because it means you can't just
>>> edit your templates in a standard XHTML or XML editor.
>>
>> Buh? Who edits HTML in an XML editor? Especially since the eRB  
>> escapes aren't, to my knowledge, real XML escapes and so I should  
>> be able to construct a valid RHTML file which isn't valid XML.
>>
>>> If typo moves to HAML, I drop typo, unless there's an HTML-to-HAML
>>> converter. I don't want to learn another markup language unless
>>> there's a really, really compelling reason. Making templates take up
>>> less characters is not that reason.
>>
>> Why would you have to learn HAML? If we push out a stable Typo that  
>> uses HAML, we'll make sure themes can still use rhtml, so there  
>> should be no problem here.
>>
>
> What we're actually going to do is leave one theme with HAML and one  
> with RHTML.
> This way, people who want to use HAML – like I do – will use it, and  
> people who want to open their template in an HTML editor will bbe  
> able to do so.
>
> That way, everyone's going to be happy.

With the possible exception of the sidebar writers. Can HAML templates
include RHTML templates yet?

-- 
Piers Cawley <pdcawley at bofh.org.uk>
http://www.bofh.org.uk/


More information about the Typo-list mailing list