On 8/12/06, Jerry W. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, Pierce,
Your first line reminds me of a comment made by one of my young
(early 20-something) colleagues when I first got into WO in the late
90's. After a couple months working with it he asked, "So, how do you
like working with WebObjects?".
I mentioned that I preferred the control that we were achieving with
Client/Server systems and that this seemed like a throw back to the
days of IBM 3270s. He responded, "Client/server... Oh, that's so
1980's!"
Imagine my confusion as I stood there thinking of the 1980s as a
still relatively recent period in computing with few negative
connotations.
In any case, I respectfully (and without a great deal of deep
thought) disagree with your position. I have always appreciated how
relatively clean WO left the html template file with the only tag
added being a simple <webobjects name=x> tag that our graphics
designers had no trouble recognizing or working around.
I still prefer that over the clutter that some of the other web
serving technologies leave in their html templates.
As someone who doesn't enjoy nor truly understand/grok CSS, XML,
XHTML, I do prefer the simplicity that allowed easy understanding of
the current WO model. I agree with Jerry that keeping that model, at
least during a transition, would be preferred.
In any case, it's a worthwhile subject for discussion and I'm looking
forward to other's comments.
Regards,
Jerry
On Aug 12, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
>
>
> Starting hopefully a new, productive thread of discussion.
>
> Personally, I find the whole way WO does dynamic tags to be very
> 1995...
>
> These days, I think WO should have tags more along the lines of
> what's become more of a standard: legal XHTML tags like the following:
>
> <span woid:replace="food">Sample Data</span>
>
> (accompanying WOD)
>
> food: WOString
> {
> value=session.food; /// hmmm... I must be hungry.
> }
>
> The big problem for the WYSIWYG editors has always been that they
> have to read two places to figure out what a tag resolves to in
> HTML terms. Why not have:
>
> <form woid:attributes="hamburger">
> ...stuff
> </form>
>
> hamburger : WOForm
> {
>
> }
>
> Perhaps rather then whine about WOB dying, we should turn
> dreamweaver/Golive/That firefox thing into WOB...
>
> What do you all think? Really, it's just a matter of replacing the
> template parser, and thanks to jadclipse, that stuff all has the
> source available...
>
>
> Pierce
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/jerrywwalker%
> 40gmail.com
>
> This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
__ Jerry W. Walker,
WebObjects Developer/Instructor for High Performance Industrial
Strength Internet Enabled Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
203 278-4085 office
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/jmlittle%40gmail.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [email protected]
