What's the difference between "the most common HTML element allowed in this context" and "the most generic legal element in this context" that you feel makes the latter preferable?
/PEZ On Oct 20, 6:14 pm, "Chris Eppstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I look at this slightly differently. When I read the syntax of ".foo" I see > an element with the class of foo. If I use an implicit tag within an LI, I > will generate invalid HTML. Whereas, if the dot syntax were smarter, you'd > get valid HTML. I don't think the rationale for changing the behavior of > implicit elements ought to be "the most common element in this context" but > rather "the most generic legal element in this context". > Granted, this is less explicit, but I think the only other valid behavior > here is to raise an error. Haml should not be generating invalid documents > where it can be avoided. If you really want an illegal document you should > specify the tag explicitly. > > chris > > 2008/10/20 John Schult <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > On Oct 19, 6:26 am, "Mislav Marohnić" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Here is what the syntax would be (feedback please): > > > > %table -- <table> > > > %.odd -- <tr class="odd"> > > > % foo -- <td>foo</td> > > > % bar -- <td>bar</td> > > > %.even > > > ... > > > > So, the "%" character without tag name would mean "the most common HTML > > > element allowed in this context". > > > My vote would be a no. I think more syntactic sugar makes Haml less > > obvious. Hampton's suggestion of using the dot only would be even > > worse. Let's not try and get too clever here, please :) > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
