I guess its the difference of us who have to work with professional CSS designers and those who hack together their own CSS.
Making Sass files public is *not* for the random public. But for professionally contracted CSS developers. You may not care about designers, but I have to work with them. And they *hate* having to modify files randomly on the /app folder and hit refresh every time. The much prefer to use in-browser tools to make changes. And since I have to pay them, I'm pretty happy that I can make their job easier. -hampon. On 2/2/07, Chris Abad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After hearing both sides of the argument, I could really go both ways on > this. > > Do I think its _dangerous_ to put sass files in the public directory? No... > they are still static assets, and the information they contain is really > nothing above and beyond what's provided in the rendered CSS. > > > Do I think they _should_ be in the public directory? No. I think it > duplicates content already available through the css files. The only real > argument I see for putting them in the public directory is the Firefox > plugin... I don't see any real value from this aside from the "cool" factor. > > One more note.. my understanding is you can change the storage location via > a setting in the environment.rb file. So the good news is, both sides are > going to get what they want. The only question is... what's the default > going to be. > > On Feb 2, 2007, at 3:09 PM, svenax wrote: > > > > > > Anyone else want to chime in? > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" 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/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
