From: Florian Gilcher <flo@...>
Date: 2009-03-28T03:39:30+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] tagz-5.0.0


On Mar 27, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Andrew S. Townley wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 03:12 +0900, Florian Gilcher wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Andrew S. Townley wrote:
>>>
>>> Who uses HTML4 anymore???? ;)
>>
>>
>> Actually, there are enough reasons for sticking with HTML. Especially
>> interesting is the point how most Browsers consume XHTML, to be found
>> in [1], section "HTML-compatible XHTML".
>
> Hi Florian,
>
> I hadn't seen this article, but I'm quite familiar with the  
> differences.
> Generating (X)HTML with Tagz will be handy, but it isn't my primary
> interest.

All the better :). It's just that I see a lot of aggressive talk against
HTML from people that don't really know the striking differences  
between both.

>
> I want a really slick tool/syntax for generating complex XML documents
> using multiple namespaces and processing instructions.  I've been  
> doing
> this in various ways for several years, and nearly all of them suck --
> equally and in different ways.

That would be great. I haven't used many tools, but I know your problem.

> Tagz is the first thing I've seen (accidentally, I might add) that
> finally allowed me to write quasi-markup in code vs. the other way
> around.  It's also quite timely, because I once again need to  
> generate a
> bunch of XML, but this time I'm using Ruby and it's looking like  
> I'll be
> adopting Tagz across the board for what I'm doing.

Well, I already liked builder, but tagz has a fine way of circumventing
the problems that plague builder.

> If I ever meet Ara, I'm buying him a pint! :)

Somebody made someone happy ;).

Regards,
Florian

--
Florian Gilcher

smtp:   flo@andersground.net
jabber: Skade@jabber.ccc.de
gpg:    533148E2