* Dr Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-04 09:00]:
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I had been thinking of XML::SlickTemplate. :-) Or else I might
go with XML::SimpleTemplate.
They seem only a little less brand-namey than Xmplate, which I
thought was a nice play on words at the time.
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Dr Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-04 09:00]:
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I had been thinking of XML::SlickTemplate. :-) Or else I might
go with XML::SimpleTemplate.
They’re better than Xmplate in that they actually contain the
word
A. Pagaltzis writes:
* Dr Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-04 10:05]:
What about Template::XML? Except that it might be thought to be
part of Template Toolkit.
Yeah, the Template:: TLNS is nominally reserved for the Template
Toolkit like DBI:: is for the DBI, even though some people have
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I had been thinking of XML::SlickTemplate. :-) Or else I might go
with XML::SimpleTemplate.
They seem only a little less brand-namey than Xmplate, which I
thought was a nice play on words at the time.
Perhaps camel case appears brand-namey to me, as it
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-28 05:15]:
Hmm. In pondering words for what you described as idiomatic
or perlish, your comment make me wonder if XML::Sketch might
capture the flavor of it? Or perhaps XML::DWIM?
Those are too close to branded names. :-/ I definitely want
“Template”
On 2/28/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. It would be something likeXML templating with lean syntax and embedded PerlA, just give us 2 or 3 samples of how it works... living breathing code. And then the name for it will manifest almost at once.
* Lincoln A. Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-26 05:00]:
Also, if anything, it would have to be XML::StrictTemplate,
since XML::Template::Strict sounds like it has some sort of
commonality with XML::Template, of which there is absolutely
none.
Now that I like better. it conveys a real
Hi Sébastien,
* Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-26 23:25]:
Maybe I miss something, but did you look at AxKit?
http://www.axkit.org/ I've never used it but I've always heard
about it as *the* Perl-XML web framework.
yes, I’ve seen AxKit and used it. It’s nice, but I’m
Hi Terrence,
* Terrence Brannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-26 04:25]:
Can you give some usage examples of your approach to XML
templating? I'm curious to see what you need that XML::DOM,
XML::LibXML, XML::LibXSLT, and PeTaL and XML::Twig cannot do for
you.
errm… you’re not seriously suggesting I
On 2/27/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Twig is muchbetter, but still they're not *templates*. I want to write*templates*, not code that builds the document programmatically,however easy the API for that might be.I see. I'm not a fan of the concept of templating. Templating is not my cup
* Terrence Brannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-27 19:55]:
I don't understand what excites people about that approach.
Writing the output directly in its final form instead of writing
code that generates that output.
In my experience, output tends to be 97% static stuff, 2.5% very
simple logic,
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I don’t have anything like that yet. I’m still in the sketching
phase, the code is only half-written, etc. As I said, I might end
up never uploading this at all.
Hmm. In pondering words for what you described as idiomatic or
perlish, your comment make me wonder if
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Hi all,
Hello Aristotle,
yes, yes, a templating module. Shush.
This one differs because it’s a pure-XML approach. The templates
must be well-formed XML, and the design of the template language
is built to ensure, as best as possible, that the output is
well-formed at
Hi all,
yes, yes, a templating module. Shush.
This one differs because it’s a pure-XML approach. The templates
must be well-formed XML, and the design of the template language
is built to ensure, as best as possible, that the output is
well-formed at all times as well.
Much to my dismay, the
Hi Lincoln,
* Lincoln A. Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-25 23:30]:
Usually superior designs can be used to wrap infrerior ones in a
way that provide backwards compatibility... If the problem is a
data file format one, then you could perhaps detect the older
format, and drop down to the older
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 12:22:55AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
BTW: I don't really like XML::XMLTemplate...
*What* about it do you dislike? Any objective reason, or is it
just a matter of taste?
I don't like the repetition. Repeating XML adds no value to the name
for me.
Why not go shopping
* Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-26 01:40]:
I don't like the repetition. Repeating XML adds no value to
the name for me.
Well, taken versus the XML::Template approach, it makes some
amount of sense. With XML::Template you don’t actually write
templates so much as grammars and instances
Can you give some usage examples of your approach to XML templating? I'm curious to see what you need that XML::DOM, XML::LibXML, XML::LibXSLT, and PeTaL and XML::Twig cannot do for you.--
http://slowchess.com/ http://www.moneycoop.org http://www.osogd.org http://www.metaperl.com
18 matches
Mail list logo
