Le lundi, 28 juil 2003, à 21:27 Europe/Paris, Jean-Michel Hiver a écrit
:
Also, with TT you have to use the filter 'html' to XML encode your
variables. Petal does it by default, and you need to use the TALES
'structure' keyword to NOT encode.
You don't *have* to use the 'html' filter in TT. I wro
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Aleksandr Guidrevitch wrote:
> May be I'm a bit late here... But is there any sence in artifical XML
> templating languages since there is XSLT ? Just wonder whether there are
> cons other than long learning curve and performance issues ?
Well, in the case of just TAL/Petal,
Hi, All
May be I'm a bit late here... But is there any sence in artifical XML
templating languages since there is XSLT ? Just wonder whether there are
cons other than long learning curve and performance issues ?
Alex Gidrevich
I suggest y'all check out Tapestry
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
to see a really nice happy medium. It uses a templating language
similar to TAL but much more flexible (and useful, in my mind) than
rigid XML. All its templates can be used in things like Dreamweaver
and GoLive with getti
> If you like a more straightforward approach, TT also lets you write:
>
>
> $some_content
>
>
> See, I knew there would be something that we would agree on! :-)
:)
> > But at the risk of breaking compatibility with some validators / XML
> > tools / etc.
>
> It still looks like
Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:
> something like:
>
>
>
>
>
> Which is completely impossible to validate and IMHO very hard to read.
Agreed. The following is easier to read, IMHO, and is also valid XML markup.
[% some_content %]
>dir="ltr"
> petal:attributes="ltr language_
> XML syntax is crufty at best. It requires you to be strict and tediously
> correct with every character.
So what. It's not like you can afford to forget that many curly braces
or semicolons (well, except those at the end of a block) with Perl. That
doesn't make it useless does it?
> You have
