Why do you think the helper has to emit the tag itself? You can have helper
functions like this:
%body{body_attributes}
Where the body_attributes function returns a hash. This allows you to use
the haml syntax for what it's good at.
Chris
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:28 AM, botanicus <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fair enough. So nex3 is right, it doesn't make sense to merge it to
> core and so I'm putting it to my Rango framework
> http://github.com/botanicus/rango.
>
> Mislav: Well you might want to have POST as a (more reasonable?)
> default and of course you could overwrite it via %form{method: "GET"}.
> And of course using helper means losing the choice of doing .class#id
> {attr: value} as I mentioned above, not mention for some things you
> don't need to use a framework. But never mind.
>
> Thanks for your opinions,
>
> Jakub Stastny aka botanicus
> http://twitter.com/botanicus
>
> On Dec 8, 2:43 pm, Mislav Marohnić <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I can't imagine where I would use this. The "type" attribute in a
> "script"
> > element is redundant, and as for forms, not all are POST and I seldom
> write
> > forms tags myself (most frameworks should have helpers for generating
> them).
> >
> > This is clearly material for Ruby helpers.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 13:38, botanicus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Well, helper is a Ruby method, so you can't just use
> > > %my_helper#id.class{attr: value}.
> >
> > > Jakub Stastny aka Botanicus
> > >http://twitter.com/botanicus
> >
> > > On Dec 7, 3:52 pm, Norman Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:28 PM, botanicus <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I created a patch which get me the chance to have default
> attributes
> > > > > for a tag, so if I specify Haml::Engine.new(template,
> > > > > default_attributes: {script: {type: "text/javascript"}, form:
> > > > > {:method: "POST"}}, then all the script tags will have type="text/
> > > > > javascript" and all the forms will have method="POST".
> >
> > > > > I sent a pull request, however nex3's opinion is that it might lead
> to
> > > > > feature bloat in Haml and he recommend me to ask Haml community. So
> > > > > I'd like to know your opinion, if you think it is good idea or now
> and
> > > > > why.
> >
> > > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but can't you accomplish the same
> thing by
> > > > defining the script tag as a Haml helper?
> >
> > > >
> http://haml-lang.com/docs/yardoc/Haml/Helpers.html#haml_tag-instance_...
> >
> > > > --Norman
> >
> > > --
> >
> > > 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]<haml%[email protected]><
> haml%[email protected]<haml%[email protected]>
> >.
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
>
> --
>
> 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] <haml%[email protected]>.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
>
>
>
--
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.
