I'd stay away from the "regular" syntax and vote for either the Tapestry/Wicket inspired syntax or that of the Invisible Tag Attribute; I think those should be clear enough and easy for people
I think this one is actually important since currently there's no way to template tag attributes in a valid xhtml manner.
My preference for the new syntax goes out to the preprocessing instruction one though, it's short, clear, valid, and either languages like php use <? ?> too.
already familiar with xhtml to get used to quicly; I think the "regular" syntax can cause a little confusion... for instance isn't a <b> tag a 'bold' in html (sort of similar to <strong>)?
Good point, overlooked that.
Personally, i'll continue to use the syntax we've been using; it's simple and stands out when i'm going over my code.
Some here :-) -- Geert Bevin Uwyn bvba "Use what you need" Avenue de Scailmont 34 http://www.uwyn.com 7170 Manage, Belgium gbevin[remove] at uwyn dot com Tel +32 64 84 80 03 PGP Fingerprint : 4E21 6399 CD9E A384 6619 719A C8F4 D40D 309F D6A9 Public PGP key : available at servers pgp.mit.edu, wwwkeys.pgp.net _______________________________________________ Rife-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uwyn.com/mailman/listinfo/rife-users
