From: Florian Weber <csshsh@...>
Date: 2004-07-26T16:22:25+09:00
Subject: Re: rubyonrails and cgikit comparison


On Jul 26, 2004, at 1:35 Uhr, James Britt wrote:

> Florian Weber wrote:
>>> As for your example - I hope you realize the example is awkward 
>>> itself
>>> :) No matter which framework you choose, the solution will always be
>>> complicated and ugly. And yes, you can do this in cgikit :)
>> not really.
>> <a href="foo" style="color: <%= (@some_stuff > 3) ? 'red' : 'black' 
>> %>">foo</a>
>> how would you do this in xml?
>
> Replace the stuff that makes XML parsers unhappy.
>
> <a href="foo"
>    style="color: &lt;%= (@some_stuff &gt; 3) ?
>      'red' : 'black' %&gt; " >foo</a>

i meant how to describe the condition in a xml template language, not
how to escape the stuff in xml =)


> It's fugly, though most templating formats have that problem anyway.
>
> Most of them force a mix of disharmonious markup: not XML, not HTML, 
> not anything consistent with the document markup.  If your main focus 
> is on the (X)HTML, and you try to use a fairly conventional HTML or 
> XML editor, the <%template sqiggles%> just get in the way.
>
> In the above example, since the XML is just a way of structuring
> the data (i.e., there are no elements that have special meaning to 
> some other process, other than a web browser), one could do this
>
> <?EXP (@some_stuff > 3) ? 'red' : 'black' ?>
> <a href="foo"  style="color: EXP  " >foo</a>
>
> on the assumption that some process knows that when it find a PI, it 
> replaces that next occurence of the PI target (here 'EXP') with the 
> eval'ed results of the PI data.
>
> It makes it a bit more friendly to designers and editing tools.
>
> My particular preference for templating tools is something that lets 
> me check the validity of code and markup independent of each other 
> (knowing, of course, that the combined results must also at some point 
> be checked).  I'd rather not have to "compile" a page each time I want 
> to verify that HTML attributes are properly quoted, or that there are 
> no syntax errors in the code.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>