Well, I'm not sure how Haml is parsing, but multiple % on one line
isn't really a severe issue. Also, I'm not interested in "markup" per
se, simply keeping like tags intuitively together.
I'm confused as to the true issue at hand. I realize Haml allows for
prettier code, but what's so unpretty about my previous example? It's
simple:
1) tags begin with % and if there are any other % before a newline it
inserts the tag as if it were simply indented below the original
2) if you want a literal % in displayed simply escape it.
. . .as far as my work is concerned I enjoy the shorthand. The
parsing rules seem as though it could be more flexible. Of course
this isn't my baby, and I haven't put all the blood, sweat, and tears
into it that Hampton and the crew have. I guess our visions are
slightly different. Oh well, off to write Maml. . .d'oh! It's taken!
. . .seriously though, I see the beauty in Haml, but my main
appreciation for it is the 'shorthand' it allows.
-Michael
PS. I suppose the problem would be as cooperman brought out: really
how far do you let it go before you disallow "containing" items on the
same line?
On May 30, 9:10 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure we are talking about the same kind of structure. Your
> example lacks structure in exactly the way that Haml provides
> structure. The structure in your example is an html element
> containing a body element containing a series of tr elements each of
> which contains two td elements. This last relationship is totally
> lost in your example. Given the mechanism by which Haml imposes
> structure what you would be saying in this example is that your html
> element encloses a body element which encloses a series of tr elements
> whose *content* is several td elements each. since your td elements
> are structural it is important that you lay them out as such to make
> the relationships between elements and other elements as well as
> elements and their content clear.
>
> Hampton, I totally agree. Perhaps the docs should emphasize the fact
> that Haml does not and should not replace HTML in such situations?
>
> ~Ross
>
> On May 30, 7:12 am, gberz3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I understand that "Haml is for Structure", but what's wrong with:
>
> > %html
> > %body
> > %tr %td blah %td blah
> > %tr %td blah %td blah
> > %tr %td blah %td blah
>
> > . . .I mean, that is extremely readable to me. Especially if I've got
> > a rendering mistake. I can simply say "it was in the third table row,
> > second column; because it looks simliar to how it would be rendered.
> > Also, it's still clean.
>
> > - Michael
>
> > On May 29, 9:13 am, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Well, what is wrong is that "Haml is for Structure" this is one of our
> > > main
> > > points of philosophy.
>
> > > Haml is terrible for inline text markup. Which, is exactly the domain of
> > > something like Textile or Markdown.
>
> > > I would have coded this like this...
>
> > > .notice
> > > Items marked with an <em>*</em> are required.
>
> > > Because, HTML isn't dirty. Especially for inline bits. Because, "Haml is
> > > for
> > > Structure".
>
> > > -hampton.
>
> > > On 5/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > In most situations I totally agree. I think there are situations
> > > > where this makes sense though...for example:
>
> > > > .notice
> > > > Items marked with a
> > > > %em *
> > > > are required
>
> > > > doesn't really read that well. Maybe something like this:
>
> > > > .notice
> > > > Items marked with a %%em *%% are required.
>
> > > > would work? I'm honestly not even sure how I feel about that but
> > > > there is just something about the first case that feels wrong...
>
> > > > ~Ross
>
> > > > On May 28, 10:31 am, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I personally kind of like the splayed-out version. When each is on a
> > > > > new line. It reads easier to me.
>
> > > > > I don't really see the one-liner as being easier to understand----
> > > > > Maybe I'm smoking too much crack though.
>
> > > > > -hampton.
>
> > > > > On 5/26/07, gberz3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You're absolutely right. I suppose I'm just hoping for some sort of
> > > > > > compromise. Perhaps we could use escapes?
>
> > > > > > -Michael
>
> > > > > > On May 26, 8:41 pm, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > Well, there are several issues with this. First, it is sort of
> > > > against
> > > > > > > the structural ideas of Haml. Also, it's ambiguous... that could
> > > > just as
> > > > > > > easily be interpreted as <tr>%td "stuff" %td "stuff" %td
> > > > "stuff"</tr>.
>
> > > > > > > - Nathan
>
> > > > > > > gberz3 wrote:
> > > > > > > > I know, I know, I'm likely defeating the entire purpose of HAML,
> > > > yet,
> > > > > > > > I can't not say something. I'm looking to put tags on the same
> > > > line
> > > > > > > > for both space savings as well as intuitive reading. For
> > > > instance,
> > > > > > > > I'd like to be able to say the following:
>
> > > > > > > > %html
> > > > > > > > %body
> > > > > > > > %table
> > > > > > > > %tr %td "stuff" %td "stuff" %td "stuff
>
> > > > > > > > . . .instead of:
>
> > > > > > > > %html
> > > > > > > > %body
> > > > > > > > %table
> > > > > > > > %tr
> > > > > > > > %td "stuff"
> > > > > > > > %td "stuff"
> > > > > > > > %td "stuff"
>
> > > > > > > > This would save space and, in some cases, be easier to
> > > > decipher. Of
> > > > > > > > course, I'm not the one behind the code. Thoughts?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
