- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:10:08 +0300
On Jul 29, 2004, at 12:02, Wrigley, Ave wrote: > I agree - I have had the same reservations. How constrained do people > feel about fitting the templating model into HTML syntax? My initial gut reaction was that some fundamental principle is violated if after parsing an XML document the elements nodes of the DOM tree are different depending on whether the DOM builder is WF2-aware or not. (OK, strictly speaking the DOM builder does not implement the repetitions at parse time, but still the DOM tree has been mutated from the form implied by raw XML-level observation before onLoad fires.) However, because I could not articulate why exactly that would be bad in practice, I did not raise the issue in my comments on the draft. I still have the feeling that problems might be just around the corner. > Clearly, there > are a number of well developed server side templating minilanguages > that > (deliberately) use a syntax that is orthogonal to the HMTL markup. (Nowadays I tend to consider such orthogonality as a bug rather than as a desirable feature, because such orthogonality leads to tag soup thinking and results.) > Without opening too much of a can of worms ... are there any lessons to > be learned / wheels left un-re-invented? For one thing, designing a terse templating language where the template directives are XML elements is hard. The supposedly terse language becomes verbose really easily in my experience. See http://www.hut.fi/~hsivonen/cms/te.html#h106 -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 12:10:08 UTC