I am missing the argument here. You can use velocity to output xml/bad html/xhtml/...
What are you planning to use to generate the xml and why do you think that is better than velocity? john mcnally [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Actually what you said helps me prove my point. I'm sure most of the > people on this list come from a programming background, which is why I think we can >all appreciate totally seperating ourselves > from the presentation. In an XML/XSL environment, the programmer is just > responsible for getting the data into an XML format, and the desgner does > what ever they want with it in XSL. As far as CSS being more popular than > XSL, that may be true for now, but it is foreseeable that they will > eventually be replaced as XHTML becomes a requirement. My point is that > this type of architecture truly allows the programmer to only work with > data, and the designer to only worry about formatting that data. Just my > opinion. > Thanks, > Ray Grieselhuber > > Humberto Hernadez Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 01/03/02 11:28 AM > Please respond to "Turbine Users List" > > > To: 'Turbine Users List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: (bcc: Ray Grieselhuber/Teamwork) > Subject: RE: Turbine Questions > > It seems to me that velocity is way esier, perhaps it is because I have a > programming background, but I half read a book on XSL/XML only being able > to > understand general concepts but unable to start using it right a way. > However, programming in velocity was a ten minute read through the user`s > guide. Furhtermore, I bet Cascade Style Sheets will be more popular among > designers than XSL/XML. Therefore, a combination of (velocity, html, css) > will be better to web design than XSL/XML. > -- > Humberto > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:50 AM > To: Turbine Users List > Subject: Re: Turbine Questions > > Thanks for your quick reply, and also for the information on DVSL. I will > > take a look at it. > As I said, I'm not trying to start a debate, but I'd like to press my > argument a little further, so that I am convinced. Velocity definitely > does > seem to be a much cleaner implementation that > many of the other frameworks that I have seen. The reasons that I think > XML/XSL has an advantage over these types of projects, however, are listed > > below: > 1. As the XSL standard matures, it seems fair to say that learning XML/XSL > > is a reasonable thing for Web Designers to do. > 2. To me, almost all presentation frameworks "look" like another scripting > > language (if-else statements, loops, etc.) Granted, XSL has some of the > same capabilities, but it is also very widely accepted. Designers are much > > more likely to know XSL than "X" Template language. > 3. The output from the application is straight XML, and it is a trivial > matter to design multiple stylesheets for differing clients. (Well kind of > > trivial. ;-) ) This is probably going to get even better as tools like XML > > Spy and others mature. > I am by no means an expert on this, but these are some issues that I have. > > I would like to hear your responses. > Thanks, > Ray Grieselhuber > > Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 01/03/02 11:34 AM > Please respond to "Turbine Users List" > > > To: Turbine Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: (bcc: Ray Grieselhuber/Teamwork) > Subject: Re: Turbine Questions > > On 1/3/02 11:12 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I am new to Turbine, and so far I really like what I see in some > aspects. > > I especially like the pluggable services architecture. The main issue > that > > I have is the usage of templating engines like Velocity. I don't mean to > > start a debate, or snub any of the Velocity developers/users of Velocity > > or any template engine. But I have got it in my head that using straight > > XML/XSL to display content/data to the user is a much more simple way to > > develop web applications. > > Not when you're working with a sizeable team which in part consists of > developers accustomed to HTML and CSS. Using Velocity allows designers to > operate in an environment which is more comfortable to them and Velocity > is > become widespread in use because of this. > > Many webapp frameworks support Velocity and the support is growing. Even > in > projects like Struts that were originally completely JSP have now modified > their approach to allow the use of Velocity because it is rapidly becoming > accepted as a viable alternative to JSP or XSL for that matter. > > BTW: If you do like XSL than you may really like DVSL which allows you to > transform XML documents using Velocity macros. You can take a peek at DVSL > here: > > http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-velocity-dvsl/ > > > Is there a reason for not doing so within > > Turbine? If there are legitimate reasons, I would like to know. Hope my > > question makes sense. > > Thanks! > > Ray Grieselhuber > > > > -- > > jvz. > > Jason van Zyl > > http://tambora.zenplex.org > http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine > http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity > http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
