Cheers, but honestly I don't care, this is not what is my patch about. On Dec 8, 7:43 pm, Chris Eppstein <[email protected]> wrote: > Why do you think the helper has to emit the tag itself? You can have helper > functions like this: > > %body{body_attributes} > > Where the body_attributes function returns a hash. This allows you to use > the haml syntax for what it's good at. > > ChrisOn Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:28 AM, botanicus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Fair enough. So nex3 is right, it doesn't make sense to merge it to > > core and so I'm putting it to my Rango framework > >http://github.com/botanicus/rango. > > > Mislav: Well you might want to have POST as a (more reasonable?) > > default and of course you could overwrite it via %form{method: "GET"}. > > And of course using helper means losing the choice of doing .class#id > > {attr: value} as I mentioned above, not mention for some things you > > don't need to use a framework. But never mind. > > > Thanks for your opinions, > > > Jakub Stastny aka botanicus > >http://twitter.com/botanicus > > > On Dec 8, 2:43 pm, Mislav Marohnić <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I can't imagine where I would use this. The "type" attribute in a > > "script" > > > element is redundant, and as for forms, not all are POST and I seldom > > write > > > forms tags myself (most frameworks should have helpers for generating > > them). > > > > This is clearly material for Ruby helpers. > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 13:38, botanicus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well, helper is a Ruby method, so you can't just use > > > > %my_helper#id.class{attr: value}. > > > > > Jakub Stastny aka Botanicus > > > >http://twitter.com/botanicus > > > > > On Dec 7, 3:52 pm, Norman Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:28 PM, botanicus <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I created a patch which get me the chance to have default > > attributes > > > > > > for a tag, so if I specify Haml::Engine.new(template, > > > > > > default_attributes: {script: {type: "text/javascript"}, form: > > > > > > {:method: "POST"}}, then all the script tags will have type="text/ > > > > > > javascript" and all the forms will have method="POST". > > > > > > > I sent a pull request, however nex3's opinion is that it might lead > > to > > > > > > feature bloat in Haml and he recommend me to ask Haml community. So > > > > > > I'd like to know your opinion, if you think it is good idea or now > > and > > > > > > why. > > > > > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but can't you accomplish the same > > thing by > > > > > defining the script tag as a Haml helper? > > >http://haml-lang.com/docs/yardoc/Haml/Helpers.html#haml_tag-instance_... > > > > > > --Norman > > > > > -- > > > > > 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]<haml%[email protected]>< > > haml%[email protected]<haml%[email protected]> > > >. > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en. > > > -- > > > 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] <haml%[email protected]>. > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
-- 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.
