Well, a few things about that: - Everyone says the same thing when they first become a Hamlite - They soon learn they were wrong (just kidding) - They write lots of partials and helpers and feel just great about their code - Haml isn't about shortcuts and anyone feel free to jump in if I'm mistaken, but it's not about emulating HTML or RHTML
There are a few places where you will do backflips for a while when you're getting used to Haml, but it will pay for itself downstream. Here's the real payoff: Your markup looks just like your DOM. Oh, wait, not good enough? Ok, HTML makes it easy to write broken markup. Haml makes you consciously *decide* to write broken markup. I have never had a Haml template fail W3C validation unless I absolutely had to have something like a Flash embed or something like that. Now about parsing... Nathan and I discussed this a while ago, and at the time we were of the opinion that less is more. The fewer special cases, the better Haml will be. The fewer places Haml needs to look for tokens, the faster it will be. Again, play with it for a while and see how you feel. --steve On May 30, 2007, at 12:19 PM, gberz3 wrote: > > Well, I'm not sure how Haml is parsing, but multiple % on one line > isn't really a severe issue. Also, I'm not interested in "markup" per > se, simply keeping like tags intuitively together. > > I'm confused as to the true issue at hand. I realize Haml allows for > prettier code, but what's so unpretty about my previous example? It's > simple: > > 1) tags begin with % and if there are any other % before a newline it > inserts the tag as if it were simply indented below the original > > 2) if you want a literal % in displayed simply escape it. > > > . . .as far as my work is concerned I enjoy the shorthand. The > parsing rules seem as though it could be more flexible. Of course > this isn't my baby, and I haven't put all the blood, sweat, and tears > into it that Hampton and the crew have. I guess our visions are > slightly different. Oh well, off to write Maml. . .d'oh! It's taken! > > > . . .seriously though, I see the beauty in Haml, but my main > appreciation for it is the 'shorthand' it allows. > > > -Michael > > PS. I suppose the problem would be as cooperman brought out: really > how far do you let it go before you disallow "containing" items on the > same line? > > On May 30, 9:10 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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? > > > > Steve Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.calicowebdev.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
