It's not actually the pure html that bugs me the most. Where I work, this isn't a limitation either. I've posted my real problems with this additional syntax in another post, but I'll add here that short-cuts aren't necessarily a good thing. Not when they make inconsistent, ugly, messed-up looking code. Having too many ways to do things is as undesirable as not having a good way to do things.



Jamie


On May 14, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Stephen Haberman wrote:


Additionally, this will now allow completely invalid HTML templates.
<shudder>

I can understand why purists like yourself really like completely valid HTML
templates. Absolutely no code in them, you can pass them off to non-tech
graphics designers, etc., etc. For people who like this, Tapestry is
awesome.


However, Tapestry is the only mainstream web framework (off the top of my
head) that allows this. Struts, Rails, WebWork, even JSP, etc., all require
some of non-HTML taglib/syntax in their pages.


I'm not seeing we should "down-grade" Tapestry's template approach, as I do
like it better, but from a purely pragmatic point of view, a lot of us don't
pass our HTML pages off to designers, and wouldn't mind having this shortcut
syntax.


I think this could be done like the previous Tapestry Lite. Old school
purists wanted to keep the explicit - which is completely fine, they have
their reasons, and the explicit way still works great. But the implicit
syntax sugar is also popular, and perhaps is becoming the norm.


Given this addition is also just syntax sugar, it could be done the same
way. If you don't like it, don't use it. But its a nice shortcut for the
rest of us.


Just my two cents. I'm actually on the fence - leaning towards the syntax
sugar, but not 100%.


- Stephen




--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to