- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:05:24 -0800
- To: Phil Cupp <pcupp@microsoft.com>
- Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Phil Cupp <pcupp@microsoft.com> wrote: >>From: François REMY [mailto:fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr] >>My reasoning is simple: the first representation (the "fraction bar" one) is easily readable, while the second one ("multiline template") is impossible to understand, and very complex to type. > > [pcupp] I think there are a lot of strong opinions about template syntax. Here my view is opposite your own. I think one can see the shape of the grid in the multi-line example and not the alternative you proposed. I'm with Phil - I find the fraction-bar style very difficult to read, while the normal template is easy. The ascii-art nature of the template makes it trivial to read, while yours requires me to do parsing in my head and reconstruct it into a 2d structure. That removes most of the benefit of the template in the first place. If you want grammar-based templates, I'd suggest starting with a preprocessor. >>Also, the "multiple lines" string template is unstable. > > [pcupp] I agree a weakness of the template syntax is maintenance of the template definition. You trade the pain of making ascii art for a visual representation of the grid. Authors that currently take the time to create and maintain ascii art in the comments of their code will likely enjoy a new ability to have their art actually be the layout definition. Authors that choose not to spend time on such things don't need a template syntax at all. Just define row and column definitions and (optionally) use named lines. Yup. I don't think your characterization is quite accurate (I don't do ascii-art drawings of my layout in comments, but I'm still madly in love with templates), but whatever. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 23:06:12 UTC