On 15 Oct 2002, William R Ward wrote: > For me, it's because TT allows Perl to be embedded in the template. > That way lies madness. The advantage of a templating system is that > you can leave the template maintenance to someone who doesn't know > programming, and let the programmer focus on the logic. If logic gets > mixed in with markup, then you might as well not be using here > documents.
TT allows Perl to be embedded in a template (through the [% perl %] block, but doesn't necessarily mandate it or rely on it like other systems. Text::UberText could just as easily have a module created that allowed for perl code inclusion, and someone could easily write one for HTML::Template. I think that debate has been covered well in the O'Reilly Network article that Leon Brocard mentioned earlier in the thread (http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/08/21/templating.html) I'm not a fan of inline code myself, but I don't want to restrict users either. It's not my desire to keep someone from shooting themselves in the foot. The one argument I will make against inline code is that is limits the template application to the perl language. HTML::Template has a parser written in Java, and it's not inconceivable that TT or UT could have parsers written in Java or Python sometime down the road. That was one of the reasons I didn't want perl syntax creeping into the UT grammar. > > --Bill, HTML::Template zealout. -------------------- Christopher Josephes -- Probably not a Text::UberText zealout yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
