Hey guys, thanks for commenting on this. Looks like dusting it off didn't go unnoticed.
I didn't think this was material for core, that's why I done it as a plugin this time. It's now part of my Standardista plugin for Haml: http://github.com/mislav/standardista/tree/master I intend to experiment with this more, so keep an eye on this by following it on github. BTW, Chris was right at the beginning of this thread. He said the implicit element should be "the most generic legal element in this context". I implemented them thay way in the first place, take a look at the mappings: http://github.com/mislav/standardista/tree/dae5de8ec43ce65d4dad96b0a4902a312651924e/lib/standardista/implicit_tags.rb#L6-13 2008/10/20 PEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What should happen with this: > > %ul > % > .foo > % > .bar > > At current it gives a syntax error. Maybe that's how it should be? If it were properly indented, that would make two LI elements with each having a DIV tag with a class. But it won't work without this commit: http://github.com/mislav/standardista/commit/9905192846602f1a313f4a5a4605850e0d903977 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
