On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:15:14PM +0000, Ivan Shmakov wrote: > > Not to sound like a broken record, but I'd add that this applies 100% > > to HTML/XML as well. I would suggest using SXML or something similar > > over a string-based templating language. This allows you to prevent > > injection bugs as well as accidental mismatching of opening/closing > > tags. > > Yet another idea is to prepare an XML document (using either > notation) holding the “mostly static” part of the result, and > also an XML document holding all the “repeated” (or “optional”) > subtrees. Both the “insertion points” in the former, and such > subtrees, are then marked, one way or another (e. g., I opted to > use the HTML ‘class’ attribute), and the code simply composes > the result by attaching such pieces to each other.
Is this code available somewhere? It sounds like a good alternative to SXML, but somewhat friendlier to designers (who aren't likely to be using emacs with paredit :P). > There's a minor convenience in the use of the “XML” notation for > the templates, too: such templates may be constructed in a way > that allows for them to be viewed with the target application > itself (such as a Web browser, should XHTML be considered.) The disadvantage of that notation is of course the opportunity for generating ill-formed XML, unless you run some kind of parsing step over it and raise an error as soon as you encounter bad nesting/syntax. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
