Mike,
I would think...
%ul
.a yo
.b sup
Would translate to...
<ul>
<li class='a'>
yo
<span class='b'>
sup
</span>
</li>
</ul>
Since I don't think a DIV can just be inside a UL.
- Jeff
On 3/5/08, ratbeard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure from the pastie code snippet this is how it works, but
> just to be sure:
>
> %ul
> .a yo
> .b sup
>
> would compile to:
> <ul>
> <li class='a'>yo</li>
> <div class='b'>sup</div>
> </ul>
>
> That is, the implicit tag inside of a 'li' would be a 'div'? This
> kind of nested implicit tag might take a little longer for your brain
> to process while reading the code, but who knows, maybe it will become
> second nature and you'll start to think about the document structure
> more instead of relying on explicit tags. And of course, you can
> always be explicit if you want to :)
>
> I think it looks very cool and look forward to trying it out.
>
> Mike
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
