I recently had reason to develop a new view type for Maverick, and
wonder if there might be any interest in it. If so, perhaps I can
contribute it back to the project.
The problem: I needed a very simple X?HTML template system. It had to
be something that, however, complicated under the hood, c
Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It sound nice. I use Velocity mostly, and am still very content with it.
> But, Velocity would not be useful for you as it does not provide you with
> valid XML source files. Just wondering... what kind of stuff are you doing
> with these XML input fil
Doug Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm...I don't want to rain on any parades, but I'm just wondering why
> you didn't want to use Velocity, as it accomplishes the same thing and
> it's already written and well-supported?
I do use Velocity, and am happy with it in the contexts in which I
use
I recently had reason to develop a new view type for Maverick, and
wonder if there might be any interest in it. If so, perhaps I can
contribute it back to the project.
The problem: I needed a very simple X?HTML template system. It had to
be something that, however, complicated under the hood, c
"Schnitzer, Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Velocity produces text that must be parsed to perform XSLT transforms.
> This new approach starts immediately with SAX events. Unlike a
> hypothetical "saxify", it doesn't require fully navigating the source
> object graph. Cool.
yes, I think so t
