Hi,
I just had a quick look at the use case of Peter again and I don't think
it is a good idea to add this feature.
This function doesn't need to be implemented as a custom function but
can be done with an included template.
@see: <http://ezcomponents.org/docs/tutorials/Template#include>
It is more intuitive in my eyes to have it with the templates. The only
"drawback" is a little bit more typing ...
You can try to convince me of the opposite if you come up with another
use case where it is really necessary to have this feature.
Regards,
Andi
Derick Rethans schrieb:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Peter Lukezic wrote:
>
>> My Problem is, when using this function, I need the raw output of this
>> function and I always get it with full html entities like '<select
>> name="...' - ok I think I could use the function like {raw
>> (formSelect(...))} but I don not want to do this like that. Has anyone an
>> idea how to solve my problem?
>
> I don't think that's currently possible, and honestly - I don't think we
> should allow it. The reason to require raw is not only for escaping
> HTML, as the template language is not only made for HTML - but also for
> other contexts (such as e-mail). Requiring raw means that the designer
> of the template thought about different contexts, as well as the
> possibility that this code might not be HTML-safe. Besides this, I don't
> really know if it is possible to do this (by adding another flag to the
> function definition f.e.) because of the internals of the engine. I
> would like to know what other people think here before continuing to
> investigate this.
>
> regards,
> Derick
--
Andreas Schamberger, B.Sc. Information Systems
Nymphenburger Str. 25 - 80335 München
mobil: +49 160 99715762
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - skype: andreass.net
--
Components mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
