On Aug 15, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
Since Petal (and HTML_Tree, but that's a dead project) are the only
ones
that do this at all, I'd say most people are doing just fine without
templates that are valid XML. I don't remember you mentioning this
requirement earlier. If you had, I would have told you Petal was your
only option.
Yeah, I never mentioned that... although it was mostly because I
assumed that most templating languages would provide for that. I
think looking at everyone's suggestions and talking with everyone
pushed me more towards Petal too.
HTML::Template does provide for it in a roundabout way - using
comments, and the new version of Text::Tagtemplate handles it well.
Neither are 'viewable' templates.
On Aug 15, 2005, at 4:48 PM, David Nicol wrote:
By having validatable templates, he can reduce his interactions with
the designers.
That's pretty much dead on.
Ironically, right now I'll be doing the bulk of the html design and I
wish I could reduce my own interactions with myself, but I don't know
if that's possible. Looking into the future I want to be able to
compartmentalize responsibility. And blame.
On Aug 15, 2005, at 4:14 PM, David Nicol wrote:
I'm seriously considering publishing a Template::Substitution::KISS or
I'm a firm believer in KISS
