From: Tom Clarke <tom@...2i.com>
Date: 2002-11-10T07:07:31+09:00
Subject: Re: An alternative HTML generation syntax


I took a look at it - looks interesting. Narf and the templating system 
are fairly well decoupled, so it could be pretty easy to disconnect. All I 
need a is a way of figuring out which code to run.

I was considering using file extensions as a way of differentiating 
between different types of templates, as opposed to specifically 
instantiating something.

What do you think?

-Tom

On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Pat Eyler wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Bruce Williams wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday 09 November 2002 12:50 pm, Pat Eyler wrote:
> > > I was really wowed by Narf at RubyConf.  It's got built in templating,
> > > reasonable looking HTML generation, CGI bits, and (best of all) it's got
> > > test::Unit hooks built in allowing you to easily test your web application
> > > from the command line.
> > >
> > > -pate
> > 
> > Actually, NARF is one of the libraries on my list to check out.  But I'm not 
> > sure I'd switch to NARF templating; I'm quite fond of Amrita's pure xhtml 
> > templating capability and the Amrita::ExpandByMember mixin.  That said, I 
> > certainly look forward to using NARFs CGI bits.
> 
> One of the things Tom and Patrick said that really intrigued me is that
> they want to make the templating pluggable.  Perhaps you could pester them
> to look at Amrita's style.
> 
> -pate
> 
> > 
> > --
> > Bruce Williams
> > bruce@codedbliss.com
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>