Haml does indeed make it *easier*.

Not to totally pass the buck (since, as the lead developer, I should
have checked the work done), but our new designer who is just learning
XHTML would do things like <div>'s inside of <ul>'s, non-atomic input
tags, and a repeating partial with a <span><p></p></span>...

It is entirely possible to mis-apply XHTML with Haml, which has been
proven in this thread. ;)

-hampton.

On 3/24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's cool. I was just a little shocked when a pure HAML site had so
> many validation errors. In my research of HAML, it seems like I had
> read in a couple of places that HAML makes it much easier to create
> valid markup.
>
> It seemed like the most common error was non-self-closing tags. I read
> in the monolithic ruby-forum post (http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/
> 81244) that a lot of people thought it would be useful to auto-close
> tags like input, img, etc...  Is that a feature you've chosen to leave
> out?
>
> Sorry if my initial post felt like a dig, I realize now I didn't
> really qualify it. I'm actually pretty stoked to start using HAML.
> You've done some great work here. Thanks Hampton.
>
>
>
> Jedidiah
>
> On Mar 22, 9:26 pm, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have gotten it down to 2 errors now (actual errors... it says 4, but
> > they are 2) and if I fix them they will most likely break the styles
> > on the site. So, I'll get to them later.
> >
> > -hampton.
> >
> > On 3/22/07, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > A) Designers aren't as familiar with the XHTML spec as I'd like.
> > > B) What kind of person runs validations on people sites anyway? Get a
> > > job! Haml does not require XHTML spec validation, nor will it ever.
> > > C) That being said, this is something that should be fixed. I will fix
> > > it as best I can without breaking the code that the designers wrote or
> > > wasting my time. It was a mistake and I should fix it.
> > > D) It works on all browsers... IE5, 6, 7, Safari, and Firefox. And
> > > *that* I'm proud of.
> >
> > > -hampton.
> >
> > > On 3/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.projectbreakout.co...
> >
> > > > hmmmmm....
> >
> > > > On Mar 22, 8:23 am, "hampton c" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Yes. Haml is definitely being used in 
> > > > > production.http://www.projectbreakout.com
> > > > > is a site we just recently launched that is pure-Haml.
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to