Actually, even if the files are in a public location. There are still security measures done by the web server that can simply deny access to that location. So its public, but if you mean it to be private - then there is no reason why it shouldn't be.
Even though this is a philosophical thread, I'd like to ask a technical question about sass. Can the parameters (!param) in a sass file be common to several files? Like when I have a color-theme that I want to repeat application-wide. and another one : What way is there to make different domains supply different css, but with changed parameters? For example: www.myapp-in-blue.com would have a theme in blue colors, www.myapp-in-red.com would have the same theme, but in red colors. Basically the css files are still static, just separated for two different domains into different dirs. As someone who discovered Haml, and Sass just today -- I must say GREAT WORK CATLIN! Please continue to make my life easier and more pleasurable! - evgeny On Feb 3, 3:33 pm, "bobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess making the location configurable is the best option for > everyone. If you need your designers be able to access sass files, > have them in public, if you don't and you don't want anyone to see > them, have them somewhere else... After reading Hampton's view I think > both options are good to have. The better option really depends on > your working requirements (and preferences). > > On Feb 3, 1:28 am, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
