Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It depends a *lot* on the type of content on your site. The above
> > www.dorado.com is brochureware, so it's not likely to need to be
> > re-styled for lighter browsers, or WebTV, or WAP, or... etc. So your
> > content (I'm guessing) is pure HTML, with Mason used as a fancy way
> > to do SSI, with Mason components for the title bars/menus, and so
> > on. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> It is more sophisticated than that, but you're basically right. I do
> pull some tagset-like tricks for individual pages, so it's not totally
> pure HTML, but yeah, if we wanted to do WebTV we'd be fscked.
>
> > AxKit is just as capable of doing that sort of thing, but where it
> > really shines is to provide the same content in different ways,
> > because you can turn the XML based content into HTML, or WebTV HTML,
> > or WML, or PDF, etc.
>
> Ah---well a web site that does all of that isn't what first comes to
> mind when someone talkes about doing a "static site"---though now that
> you've explained further, I believe I understand exactly what you
> intended.
>
> > I talk about how the current Perl templating solutions (including
> > Mason) aren't suited to this kind of re-styling in my AxKit talk,
> > which I'm giving at the Perl conference, so go there and come see
> > the talk :-)
>
> Heh. I agree entirely with this assesment---I can conceptualize a way
> to do it in Mason, but the processing overhead would be unfortunate,
> the amount of handwaving involved would be enormous, and it would
> probably be rather fragile.
>
> > So I take back that people wouldn't be using Mason for static
> > content. I was just trying to find a simple way to classify these
> > tools, and to some people (I'd say most people), Mason is more on
> > the dynamic content side of things, and AxKit is more on the static
> > content side of things, but both tools can be used for both types of
> > content.
> >
> > (I hate getting into these things - I wish I'd never brought up
> > Mason or EmbPerl)
>
> Well I will say that you made an excellent point that hadn't really
> occured to me---I use XML + XSL for a lot of stuff (the DTD I use for
> my resume is a deeply reworked version of one I believe you had posted
> at one time), but not web sites, in part because I'm not currently
> obligated to worry about "other devices"---so I don't exactly regret
> getting you to clarify things.
>
> Could I suggest that a better tagline would be that AxKit is superior
> when creating easily (re-)targetable sites with mostly static content?
> It might stave off more ignorant comments.
>
> Mike.
Matt,
I've also found your use of "static" to describe "transformable" or
"re-targetable"(unfortunate
word)" content to be confusing. This discussion helps clarify things, a
little. ;-)
Ed
