On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 08:01, Jan Koprowski <[email protected]>wrote:
> > As I say: i look HAML notation as brief and legible at the same time. > From this point of view HAML could drastically decrease data transfer > between browser and web server. I don't know statically how much HAML > is smaller then full XHTML site source but i think this is enough to > think about sending HAML to web browser instead (X)HTML or anything > else. I respect your enthusiasm, but I have to agree with Nathan. Once you take Haml out Ruby, it decreases a lot in value. Haml is designed to *generate* HTML4-5 or XHTML, not to replace all of that by being handled client-side by user agents. I also don't think a JavaScript implementation can be as efficient as compiled Haml templates on the server combined with caching (both server and good ol' HTTP). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
