On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Lille <[email protected]> wrote:
> Right. > > Further clarification sought: the designer needs to run Rails while > they design. This is what had me assuming I could translate erb into > pure html; I would think it ideal if designers didn't need to use any > framework to do their work, which, after all, only involves the .html > files. > Yeah, actually that is a good point and argument for having someone who does know Rails. There are easy to install environments - like Instant Rails on windows and I know there are some others for Linux.... Virtual Rails I think. So you could go this route and educate them enough to run the app and load pages. > > Lille > > On Nov 3, 12:08 pm, Colin Law <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 3 November 2010 15:55, Lille <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the clarification of the erb matter. (I guess the basic > > > requirement of these scripts is the employment of a vernacular that > > > any designer can work with.) > > > > > OK, so get a GitHub account and RSpec the views, e.g., to ensure that > > > any html elements involved in client-side functionality remain intact. > > > > You do not have to use github, though that is a perfectly viable > > route. You can also just run git locally. > > > > Colin > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<rubyonrails-talk%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
