Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
I like this idea very much. It would be a shame if the quirks of Dreamweaver should force everyone to use an awkward syntax.
The attribute driven synatax is new to me so I don't know if I find it awkward or not, I'll need to see some larger examples. Anyway, we have a user community (and our own webbaps) to think about, we cannot change dirrection at every whim. We must support JXTG for the forseable future so I would prefer if we could allow both syntaxes.
Now, it will be interesting to see how long time it will take before someone explains that: this is FS we only need to support one syntax, namely the obviously optimal one, and those who believe that they need the other one are generally less knowing and doesn't understand their own best ;)
I know you are looking at me :-) but interestingly enough, my FS alarm didn't go off.
I really think that it makes sense to have two different syntaxes, one that uses elements and another one that uses attributes.
Yes, I think we need both ways. *I* prefer the element style because for me expresions like
<p do="let(x=/a/long/path/from/the/root;if(x);content(x/txt);attributes(class=x/class)">
Ex Text
</p>
are close to be unreadable - I have the feeling of looking at a regular expression (and this is _not_ a good feeling)
But the Dreamweaver usecase is a valid one (It was me who started a discussion about this in May after attenting a Tapestry seminar at a conference) and so we should support it.
Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
Can't agree more.
-- Reinhard
