> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This is OT, but I've been planning to do the same, as an alternative to > parse. A very nice aspect of Velocity is that its not hard to write > valid XHTML templates. Unless, of course, you are slicing and dicing > them with parse =:(
Yeah... this is, IMHO, a compelling advantage of Velocity over Freemarker or JSP. I believe the only significant (and pretty minor at that) issue is the relational operator <. > So, once I get through a pass on the latest set of pages in my lead > application, I'd like to go back and try assembling them using XSL, to > get most of the benefits of parse (or Tiles), without loosing valid > XHMTL file or paying a runtime penalty. It does seem to provide the best of all worlds. It would be a lot more flexible than tiles too. My only concern is that it would make life harder for nontechie designers. Then again, it might not - the XSL templates would rarely need to change, and it would be easy to build up a "vocabulary" of xml elements so that actual page content might look very simple. The downside of this is that it completely abandons standard html editor tools... which were probably choking on the velocity anyways. A lot of my desire for this approach comes from using the Tigris CSS stylesheets. CSS is supposed to separate style from content but the HTML ends up looking pretty miserable anyways, with strange divs and classes and all manner of incomprehensible junk. I'd rather specify tab pages with real XML tags like <tabbed> instead of figuring out the right CSS classes to put on table cells. Jeff ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf [INVALID FOOTER]
