Makes sense. I think that's what the current implementation does actually.
/PEZ On Oct 20, 9:58 pm, "Chris Eppstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe it's splitting hairs, but commonality implies a statistical analysis > to save developers time in the most frequent use cases while the "most > generic legal element" can be calculated and documented according to the > semantics of the elements themselves. > for instance, I bet we'd find that an anchor tag is the most commonly used > sub element in a paragraph but the most generic legal element would be a > span. > > -chris > > 2008/10/20 PEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
