And when you use firebug, then you don't really need the source structured anyway. Even though, some browsers act funny when there is whitespace between elements, or when its missing. For example pasting several images together to become a single image might prove difficult if there is whitespace between the <img> elements.
On 7/24/07, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not for the one person who does a view source. It's for me if I'm > trying to figure out what my freakin' source looks like to a browser. Yes, > Haml is great for forming well-behaved XHTML. But ultimately, I have to read > over what's going to be shipped to the those browsers. So the readability is > for me, not the curious bozo who looks at the source. > > Just my $.02 > > > > > On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Mislav Marohnić wrote: > On 7/24/07, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We thought about that, but we wanted to emphasize that it would involve > > sacrificing prettiness more than we wanted to emphasize that it gave > > speed increases. > > I don't really see the rationale of wasting bandwidth to send a ton of > whitespace to 999 users just because of the 1 person who is going to view my > source. I know that beautiful output is a feature of Haml that authors are > proud of, bit I'm using Haml because it makes layout nicer to me (the > developer) and allows me to build them faster. > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
