haml is quite powerful, comparing it to markdown and others is not quite fair. It is really an erb replacement and thus gives you the power to use with ruby backends to create dynamic content. Haml also ties into CSS is a way taht I am not sure others address. I think that looking at a haml based site could make sense if we ever want to add more than just static content but still keep things relatively simple.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Eric Merritt <[email protected]> wrote: > Guys, > > we have been talking about moving back to a simple static generation > for the erlware site to simplify things. Here are some candidates > > http://webgen.rubyforge.org/ > http://sphinx.pocoo.org/ > http://gitorious.org/webber > http://nanoc.stoneship.org/ > http://staticmatic.rubyforge.org/ > http://webby.rubyforge.org/ > > I suggest we go with webgen, its maintained we have used it before and > it mostly seems to work. Better yet you can use markdown or textile as > the templating language which is nice. I suggest we stay away from the > haml based ones. I guess I could think of a worse templating language > then haml but I would really have to try. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "erlware-dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en. > > -- Martin Logan Erlang & OTP in Action (Manning) http://manning.com/logan http://twitter.com/martinjlogan http://erlware.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "erlware-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
