ooo... that just feels so wrong, where does content begin and structure end? .... if that was html, you would have opening tags and closing tags for each %td
and a second personal note, it is MUCH more difficult to move things around - and that what makes me love haml so much, that moving structure around is so easy. please please please don't even consider adding anything the likes of that example, thats exactly the reason why html sucks for human beings - for being too all-over-the-place. Regards, - evgeny On 5/30/07, gberz3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
