On 9 ene, 08:48, Nathan Weizenbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the meantime, :ugly makes Haml forego pretty-printing the resulting > HTML, which makes it nasty to read but somewhat faster (in the master > branch, kind of a lot faster) to produce.
Of course, just what "nasty" means is a bit subjective. With :ugly the only real difference is that the output won't be indented. So you'll have: <ul> <li>Hello</li> <li>World</li> </ul> Instead of: <ul> <li>Hello</li> <li>World</li> </ul> Personally, I don't think it's that ugly. One area where the :ugly output is actually a lot less ugly is in <pre></pre> blocks and other areas where you need whitespace preservation: <pre>foo bar</pre> That's with :ugly. This is without it: <pre>foo
bar</pre> Maybe not such a bit difference for small quantities of text, but if you have a lot of text then it can easily become an undecipherable slab without :ugly. Cheers, Wincent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
