Eh, in theory, you could definitely do index.xml.haml I know lots of people using haml to generate xml.
On 10/23/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also find this kind of ridiculous: > > index.html.haml > > ".html" extension is redundant because Haml can only generate HTML ... > besides, Rails 2.0 works perfectly fine with templates named just ".haml". > > > On 10/23/07, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sass isn't a regular rendering engine. So, it wouldn't really make > > sense to do that. Its not like Sass can render multiple types of data. > > Also, they aren't views in any way. > > > > -hampton. > > > > On 10/23/07, pimpmaster < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > With all the new naming conventions for files in Rails 2.0, can we > > > expect Sass to follow suit? > > > > > > application.css.sass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to haml@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
