--On 8. Januar 2007 13:01:26 -0500 "Mark, Jonathan (Integic)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

"""Why (the hell) are you (still) using DTML (as newbie). You are strongly
encouraged to use ZPT."""

My sense is that ZPT solves a problem which for most of us does not
exist. If you wish to have designers work directly on markup in an HTML
WYSIWYG editor then yes, ZPT is great.

That's a pseudo argument. I've never seen any designer working on top
of a ZPT

But most of us create our own HTML anyway. And for us it doesn't matter
if DTML works in a WYSIWYG HTML editor, because we don't use the latter.

What does matter is that DTML is very similar to RHTML (as in Ruby On
Rails), ASP, etc. ZPT requires a new way of thinking. I would much rather
convert RHTML to or from DTML than to or from ZPT.

So I don't really get the benefit of using ZPT. The fact that no one
outside of Zope seems to have created a ZPT-like solution suggests to me
that ZPT, as I said, solves a problem which doesn't exist.

The question is: what is easier to learn and to understand - DTML or ZPT?
Can you explain the "nonsense" of the _ namespace in DTML to a newbie?
Can you explain the sequence-item magic with all special cases to a newbie?
ZPT is another approach to generate HTML. It's more logical, easier to learn
and read. A person with PHP background might prefer DTML but from my experience with people starting with I can say that ZPT is more straight forward for them. ZPT has of course it's pros and cons but my general advice to people starting with Zope: thumb up for using ZPT, thumb down for using DTML.


Attachment: pgpAlvp8m8LtH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to