HI, Bertrand Delacretaz schrieb: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> wrote: >> ...If down-stream users want to not pay the price for well-formedness, they >> should use the traditional approach using <%= %>. Event there, >> developers are required to apply some form of well-formedness.... > > Ok, as long as we don't deprecate the loose <%= %> syntax I see your point.
Why should we ? I think we could happily support both syntaxes and have the ECMAEscript script engine use the extension to decide: .ecma -> plain ECMAScript, no markup .esp -> old markup (<%= %>, <% %>) .espx -> XML markup (well-formedness required) >> ...So, I would be all for using an XML parser for espx scripts. This >> requires more from the programmer but gives back much more.... > > Not convinced, but if there's choice, people can pick their poison ;-) Regards Felix
