[typo] Switch To HAML?
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>
More information about the Typo-list