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.
