I'm not sure we are talking about the same kind of structure. Your example lacks structure in exactly the way that Haml provides structure. The structure in your example is an html element containing a body element containing a series of tr elements each of which contains two td elements. This last relationship is totally lost in your example. Given the mechanism by which Haml imposes structure what you would be saying in this example is that your html element encloses a body element which encloses a series of tr elements whose *content* is several td elements each. since your td elements are structural it is important that you lay them out as such to make the relationships between elements and other elements as well as elements and their content clear.
Hampton, I totally agree. Perhaps the docs should emphasize the fact that Haml does not and should not replace HTML in such situations? ~Ross On May 30, 7:12 am, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
