> From: "Marc Lindahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > in the implementation on certain browsers.  Which points to the inability
> of
> > supposedly real programmers to understand stacks, parsing, state
> machines -
> > not the poor HTML coders :)  - if you read diatribes by the layout guys
> > (like alistapart) you'll see their frustration is based that the heirarchy
> > (stacking) isn't working as expected.

So surely it would be bad to introduce a similar bug opportunity?

Adrian Hungate wrote:
> would appear to be that it is better than what has gone before. It is
> irritating to learn a new syntax, 

Think of the benefits ;-)

> it is hard to read (Some of us design Zope
> sites TTW...) 

Un-learn that habit too. It's so nice having things like search & replace and syntax
highlighting afterall...

> the flow of logic is obscure and sometimes downright
> impossible to follow, 

Urm? Gimme some examples so I can help...

> There is one important point being missed here though - Why should the
> non-programmers be interested in the coding? If the concept of a stack is to
> hard for them to understand, so what? Shouldn't they be designing plain
> pages, which the coded templates simply render? 

See the TASSLE discussion over on the ZPT list ;-)

> Or are we now passing off
> the task of designing look and feel to non-experts? Anyone want to find
> another area of the industry to dilute? Now, return to the Marc and Chris'
> last comments, why exactly can't leading browsers follow standards, because
> they are written by people that can't program, in languages that were made
> "simple" for the sake of "non-experts".
> I put it to you that this argument is invalid and of no merit.

I don't even understand the point you're missing ;-)



Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to