On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 22:59, Ian Bicking wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 22:18, Stuart Donaldson wrote: > > I lean towards fixing the example in the docs. Some of the > code looks > > like XML, in particular the <psp:method> and <psp:include> > commands. > > I would argue that if they look that much like XML then they should > > behave like it too. > > We shouldn't even pretend PSP has any relation to XML -- lots of > templating languages do that, and it's dumb, because they either are > wordy (ZPT) or are a long way from proper XML (Albatross) or they are > horribly arcane (XSL). PSP is a text processing layer, built to be > vaguely similar to ASP/JSP -- the chosen markup isn't any deeper than > that. It's simple because it deals with text, not markup.
I would like to agree with this. But the "<psp:*>" tagging looks just like XML and therefore already "pretends" to have a relation to XML. Either way, I am not arguing to try and make it into XML by any means, but to use XML as a conceptual model for supporting PSP. > The only problem with not accepting a space is that PSP won't > signal any > error (I believe), and the developer might be mystified. But I don't > think it happens that much, so whatever. But there's nothing *wrong* > with allowing a space. It's not proper XML either way. PSP doesn't recognize the tag and just passes it through. In the test I just ran on Both Mozilla and IE, the space after the opening < invalidates the tag, and therefore everything between the < and > gets displayed in the browser. It therefore becomes somewhat easier to debug because the browser just shows the tag, complete with space. > > We could make it slightly more friendly and allow for the space, but > > does that mean we should allow for "< %" as well? The parser is > > fairly simple and works on simple tokens, trying to fix it for > > whitespace would make it more complicated too. > > I wouldn't want < % to be allowed. That just looks weird. Agree, and neither should "< psp:..." be allowed. I am trying to nock off bugs and patches. Unless anyone else pipes in with more comments on this, I would like to just fix the documentation, and then close the bug. Does this sound reasonable? -Stuart- ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Webware-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
