Yeah perhaps utilize an xml maven plugin or similar - for the moment
(and this proof of concept) think i'll stick to using lift tags and
consider doing this sort of XSLT implementation for some IDE
integration or whatever...
We'll see what happens and how this process evolves over time.
Thanks f
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Timothy Perrett wrote:
>
> Hey Viktor,
>
> I think you might be right... but how to plug such an XSLT into the
> template processing pipeline?
I'd guess it depends on how you want to handle it. if it's just templates I
guess you could manage it externally ("use t
Hey Viktor,
I think you might be right... but how to plug such an XSLT into the
template processing pipeline?
Cheers, Tim
PS: Glad to see your broken keyboard is still producing amusing
results lol ;-)
On Aug 29, 7:57 am, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Tim, if you really want to go that riute create a
Tim, if you really want to go that riute create an xslt to transform your
custom tags to luft tags?
On Aug 29, 2009 8:01 AM, "marius d." wrote:
Tim, obscuring things may get you a really long way indeed. But once
the obscurity get broken and people figure out that they can do other
things by us
Tim, obscuring things may get you a really long way indeed. But once
the obscurity get broken and people figure out that they can do other
things by using strange undocumented tags (i.e lift tags) they could
cause lots of problems and side effects.
Personally I'd stay away from it. And if I'd nee
Security by obscurity, eh?
Timothy Perrett wrote:
> Its not that I want to completely stop the normal lift tag processing, I
> don't, I just want to make it appear to users as if they are not using
> lift... That might sound crazy, but essentially I want users to only know
> about that tags they
Its not that I want to completely stop the normal lift tag processing, I
don't, I just want to make it appear to users as if they are not using
lift... That might sound crazy, but essentially I want users to only know
about that tags they are told about, rather than having obvious access to
all th
On Aug 28, 11:20 pm, Timothy Perrett wrote:
> Hey Marius
>
> Firstly I agree with your thoughts on LiftTagPF - im not sure that
> overriding the default lift tags would ever be a good idea for
> implementing users...
Well I was referring to overwriting (as those would take precedence
over buil
Personally I'm not a fan of such feature. To me this doesn't bring
much benefits especially that snippets pretty much allow this support
such as:
...yes the wrapping tag is extra typing but still I can't find a real
problem where a custom tags solves it and snippets do now. To me this
look
Hey Marius
Firstly I agree with your thoughts on LiftTagPF - im not sure that
overriding the default lift tags would ever be a good idea for
implementing users... However, I do see a use case, in, for instance
the CMS arena where having a specialized tagging mechanism would be
beneficial because
Hey David,
Id like to echo your thoughts - I see no issue with views being tied
to plugins or other such arbitrary tags... as you say, they are
already tied to snippets.
What are your thoughts on how arbitrary tag / prefix support could be
implemented?
Cheers, Tim
> There's been some discussio
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Timothy Perrett wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> If I wanted to create my own set of custom tags that looked like:
>
>
There's been some discussion of this feature in the past. The generally
outcome is that cost of prefix/label soup would become very confusing
because the
12 matches
Mail list logo
