Frederic de Villamil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le 12 févr. 07 à 02:20, Kevin Ballard a écrit : > >> On Feb 2, 2007, at 12:55 PM, mathew wrote: >> >>> I agree. I think HAML is a dumb idea, because it means you can't just >>> edit your templates in a standard XHTML or XML editor. >> >> Buh? Who edits HTML in an XML editor? Especially since the eRB >> escapes aren't, to my knowledge, real XML escapes and so I should >> be able to construct a valid RHTML file which isn't valid XML. >> >>> If typo moves to HAML, I drop typo, unless there's an HTML-to-HAML >>> converter. I don't want to learn another markup language unless >>> there's a really, really compelling reason. Making templates take up >>> less characters is not that reason. >> >> Why would you have to learn HAML? If we push out a stable Typo that >> uses HAML, we'll make sure themes can still use rhtml, so there >> should be no problem here. >> > > What we're actually going to do is leave one theme with HAML and one > with RHTML. > This way, people who want to use HAML – like I do – will use it, and > people who want to open their template in an HTML editor will bbe > able to do so. > > That way, everyone's going to be happy.
With the possible exception of the sidebar writers. Can HAML templates include RHTML templates yet? -- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.bofh.org.uk/ _______________________________________________ Typo-list mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
