At 02:03 PM 6/8/01 -0400, Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
>At 01:52 PM 6/8/2001 -0400, Geoff Talvola wrote:
>>I just noticed that the documentation for PSP specifies the following syntax:
>>
>>If you want to include another PSP file in this PSP file and have it be
>>parsed for PSP content:
>><%@include file="myfile.txt"%>
>>
>>If you want to forward the request to another servlet, including the
>>result in the output:
>><psp:include file="myfile.psp">
>
>It looks strange that <[EMAIL PROTECTED] and <psp:include... have extremely
>different semantics. And why is one prefixed with "@" and the other with
>"psp:"? Why are they both called "include" if they do something different?
>
>I don't use *SP much in practice, so I don't take the semantics or syntax
>for granted.
>
>Sorry if this is already explained in the docs, but it points at that at
>first glance this seems rather arcane.
True. Even for a semi-experienced PSP user like me it's very difficult to
remember what the tags do. Although in actuality, I don't think I'm using
any of these tags at all in my pages :-) I basically use "page extends"
and "page method" and that's it.
>>If you want to insert a file verbatim into the output:
>><psp:insert file="myfile.html">
>>
>>But, it turns out that you actually have to use <psp:include
>>path="myfile.psp">. The other two ones do work as advertised with "file=".
>>
>>Any objections to making all three of them use file=, to be consistent
>>with each other and with the documentation?
>
>No objection from me, but I'm really bothered by what I noticed above.
Maybe Jay will jump in here with his thoughts? I don't really have any
strong preference, and like I said, I haven't even been using those
tags. But I would like to see PSP be logical, consistent, and easy to
understand.
--
- Geoff Talvola
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
