True, DW monkey can crap anything up, but not True that
H::T is better to DW edit than T::T (You can set your tags
to be !-- TT_CODE -- just as with H::T.
Leo
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +0100, Struan Donald wrote:
* at 18/06 17:21 +0100 Roger Burton West said:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at
Philip,
Have a look at this, TT2 based solution, it's a bit
bloated (as it includes page numbering and various other
functions):
http://test.cuckoo.org/script_template.txt,
the key line is:
my $results = Emap::HolidayFinder::Tod::do_search(\%form_input,$dbh);
This is then merged with the
At 08:36 AM 6/19/01 +0100, Leo wrote:
Have a look at this, TT2 based solution, it's a bit
bloated (as it includes page numbering and various other
functions):
http://test.cuckoo.org/script_template.txt,
the key line is:
my $results = Emap::HolidayFinder::Tod::do_search(\%form_input,$dbh);
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:11:47AM +0100, Robert Price wrote:
At 08:36 AM 6/19/01 +0100, Leo wrote:
http://test.cuckoo.org/script_template.txt,
the key line is:
my $results = Emap::HolidayFinder::Tod::do_search(\%form_input,$dbh);
[snip]
Hope that's not copyrighted Emap code you have
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:24:13PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:54:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:46:25PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote:
I'd also like to mention HTML::Mason - Euuu, No, no and thrice no!
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:20:37AM +0100, Steve Purkis wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Seriously, I agree 100% that you should strive to seperate application
from your presentation as much as possible, but seeing that you can not
do this entirely, you may as well embed perl in your HTML
snip type=inevitable love/hate circular debate/
I was going to stay quiet on this one (still don't know why I am now joining
in).
I am finding XSLT XML to be a good alternative to normal templating
techniques. One of the biggest benifits I've found is being able to generate
the one data set
From: David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:51 AM
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:20:37AM +0100, Steve Purkis wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Seriously, I agree 100% that you should strive to seperate application
from your presentation as much as possible, but
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 08:08:50PM +1000, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
I am finding XSLT XML to be a good alternative to normal templating
techniques. One of the biggest benifits I've found is being able to generate
the one data set and have it rendered in different ways for different
More on XML/XSLT/seperation of roles philosophy
http://xml.apache.org/cocoon2/index.html
paul
Ian Brayshaw wrote:
snip type=inevitable love/hate circular debate/
I was going to stay quiet on this one (still don't know why I am now joining
in).
I am finding XSLT XML to be a good
Jonathan Stowe sent the following bits through the ether:
As a reference for this kind of thing one might ( if one can be arsed to
look at Java stuff ) to look at the way the Enhydra thingy does things in
creating classes in directories like :
We don't need no stinking directories - we can
Dominic Mitchell sent the following bits through the ether:
You'd be surprised how many people are willing to learn something when
it's got microsoft attached to it and big whopping books from que.
Would it be entertaining for people to give small talks on the
templating system of their
Friends,
HELP!
In a moment of stupidity[1] I agreed to write an article for lathos on
templating solutions for Perl. This was an attempt to finally break my
writing block/issues/mindset problems. It is going to be a compare and
contrast article and so far I've looked at,
Template
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
In a moment of stupidity[1] I agreed to write an article for lathos on
templating solutions for Perl. This was an attempt to finally break my
writing block/issues/mindset problems. It is going to be a compare and
contrast
no!
(ok, has some nice 'bits' but NO - thou shalt not put thy
HTML and thy Perl in the same file).
Leo
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
In a moment of stupidity[1] I agreed to write an article for lathos on
templating solutions for Perl.
Greg McCarroll sent the following bits through the ether:
In a moment of stupidity[1]
Fool.
There are at least 30 other Perl templating systems. See the
templating systems benchmark last week on the mod_perl list for
example. Perrin Harkins is presenting Choosing a Templating System
at oscon,
At 04:36 PM 6/18/01 +0100, Greg wrote:
In a moment of stupidity[1] I agreed to write an article for lathos on
templating solutions for Perl. This was an attempt to finally break my
writing block/issues/mindset problems. It is going to be a compare and
contrast article and so far I've looked
Oi,
Rob,
What's this,
Home grown (and not smokable),
I left Emap too early if your not a TT2 convert yet.
We can 'do lunch' later this week and I'll bash you
with some TT2 docs or something :)
Leo
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:57:17PM +0100, Robert Price wrote:
It may be a good idea to
Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Template Toolkit
HTML::Mason
Text::Template
HTML::Template
HTML::Embperl
Also Apache::ASP
searching for template on CPAN also gets quite a lot of hits...
--
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I like ePerl, comprised of
Apache::ePerl
Parse::ePerl
It's a very simple does what it says on the tin way of embedding perl in
any other (text) fine, plus it has low level access to what it does in it's
parse routine. Handy in many situations, I find.
No new versions since 1998 and none
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
First, are there any others that I should look at? Also I'd really like
any objective input people have about templating with these modules. It
is important to me to try and not just get the article done and dusted,
but for once to
Simon Wilcox wrote:
I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason Apache::ASP because they all
embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm).
Why is that so evil?
I'm willing to be enlightened here.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All opinions are my own, not my
* at 18/06 17:21 +0100 Roger Burton West said:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
The main reason I prefer H::T to T::T is that H::T templates can be
given to Dreamweaver monkeys to edit without my having to worry that
they'll screw them up.
That is an
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Simon Wilcox wrote:
I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason Apache::ASP because they all
embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm).
Why is that so evil?
i think it one of two schools of thought
is your template a Template or a Rich
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 06:30:24PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
Simon Wilcox wrote:
I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason Apache::ASP because they all
embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm).
Why is that so evil?
I'm willing to be enlightened here.
Mainly maintainability. In
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 05:39:11PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 06:30:24PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
Simon Wilcox wrote:
I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason Apache::ASP because they all
embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm).
Why is
Leo Lapworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oi,
Rob,
What's this,
Home grown (and not smokable),
I left Emap too early if your not a TT2 convert yet.
We can 'do lunch' later this week and I'll bash you
with some TT2 docs or something :)
Oooh! Me too!
--
Dave Hodgkinson,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 06:30:24PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
Simon Wilcox wrote:
I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason Apache::ASP because they all
embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm).
Why is that so evil?
I'm willing to be enlightened here.
Separation of code and data -
Philip Newton wrote:
Simon Wilcox wrote:
I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason Apache::ASP because they all
embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm).
Why is that so evil?
I'm willing to be enlightened here.
A couple of reasons.
Separation of code presentation is
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:46:25PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote:
I'd also like to mention HTML::Mason - Euuu, No, no and thrice no!
(ok, has some nice 'bits' but NO - thou shalt not put thy
HTML and thy Perl in the same file).
It is NOT POSSIBLE to completely divorce
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:54:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
It is NOT POSSIBLE to completely divorce presentation/application.
You're missing a word from the end of the sentence, and that's Ilogic.
If you add it you're obviously wrong though...
So you end up with all sorts of languages
On 18 Jun 2001, Steve Mynott wrote:
Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Template Toolkit
HTML::Mason
Text::Template
HTML::Template
HTML::Embperl
Also Apache::ASP
I did have this crackhead idea a week or two ago about making something
that 'Compiled' HTML
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Roger Burton West wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 06:30:24PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
Simon Wilcox wrote:
I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason Apache::ASP because they all
embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm).
Why is that so evil?
I'm willing
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:54:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:46:25PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote:
I'd also like to mention HTML::Mason - Euuu, No, no and thrice no!
(ok, has some nice 'bits' but NO - thou shalt not put thy
HTML and thy Perl in the same
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:24:13PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:54:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:46:25PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote:
I'd also like to mention HTML::Mason - Euuu, No, no and thrice no!
(ok, has some nice 'bits'
Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
It is possible to write embedded perl templates well, but a
lot more difficult than if they are separated out.
How does non-embedded Perl look like, then?
Is Perl the outside layer and basically does '#include navbar.html' at
certain points?
Or is HTML the outside
36 matches
Mail list logo
