I understand that "Haml is for Structure", but what's wrong with:
%html
%body
%tr %td blah %td blah
%tr %td blah %td blah
%tr %td blah %td blah
. . .I mean, that is extremely readable to me. Especially if I've got
a rendering mistake. I can simply say "it was in the third table row,
second column; because it looks simliar to how it would be rendered.
Also, it's still clean.
- Michael
On May 29, 9:13 am, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, what is wrong is that "Haml is for Structure" this is one of our main
> points of philosophy.
>
> Haml is terrible for inline text markup. Which, is exactly the domain of
> something like Textile or Markdown.
>
> I would have coded this like this...
>
> .notice
> Items marked with an <em>*</em> are required.
>
> Because, HTML isn't dirty. Especially for inline bits. Because, "Haml is for
> Structure".
>
> -hampton.
>
> On 5/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In most situations I totally agree. I think there are situations
> > where this makes sense though...for example:
>
> > .notice
> > Items marked with a
> > %em *
> > are required
>
> > doesn't really read that well. Maybe something like this:
>
> > .notice
> > Items marked with a %%em *%% are required.
>
> > would work? I'm honestly not even sure how I feel about that but
> > there is just something about the first case that feels wrong...
>
> > ~Ross
>
> > On May 28, 10:31 am, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I personally kind of like the splayed-out version. When each is on a
> > > new line. It reads easier to me.
>
> > > I don't really see the one-liner as being easier to understand----
> > > Maybe I'm smoking too much crack though.
>
> > > -hampton.
>
> > > On 5/26/07, gberz3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > You're absolutely right. I suppose I'm just hoping for some sort of
> > > > compromise. Perhaps we could use escapes?
>
> > > > -Michael
>
> > > > On May 26, 8:41 pm, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Well, there are several issues with this. First, it is sort of
> > against
> > > > > the structural ideas of Haml. Also, it's ambiguous... that could
> > just as
> > > > > easily be interpreted as <tr>%td "stuff" %td "stuff" %td
> > "stuff"</tr>.
>
> > > > > - Nathan
>
> > > > > gberz3 wrote:
> > > > > > I know, I know, I'm likely defeating the entire purpose of HAML,
> > yet,
> > > > > > I can't not say something. I'm looking to put tags on the same
> > line
> > > > > > for both space savings as well as intuitive reading. For
> > instance,
> > > > > > I'd like to be able to say the following:
>
> > > > > > %html
> > > > > > %body
> > > > > > %table
> > > > > > %tr %td "stuff" %td "stuff" %td "stuff
>
> > > > > > . . .instead of:
>
> > > > > > %html
> > > > > > %body
> > > > > > %table
> > > > > > %tr
> > > > > > %td "stuff"
> > > > > > %td "stuff"
> > > > > > %td "stuff"
>
> > > > > > This would save space and, in some cases, be easier to
> > decipher. Of
> > > > > > course, I'm not the one behind the code. Thoughts?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
