OK, RJS is not a problem, and there may be a case where RXML with layout makes sense (does that happen often enough to make it a good default? I doubt).
I still say that formatting something with RXML without layout should not require creating a bogus action. It just doesn't feel right. How about format.xml :layout => nil Alex On 3/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I use format.js for rjs. > > On Mar 6, 7:05am, "Mislav Marohnić" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On 3/6/07, Alexey Verkhovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Generally, "no layout" seems like a reasonable default for RJS and > RXML > > > templates to me. I have yet to see anyone using those things with a > layout, > > > so the current behavior usually results in extra code to switch it > off. > > > Thoughts? > > > > RXML isn't just for feeds and data dumps - people use it for XHTML, > also. > > But I agree with you that RJS responses shouldn't have implicit layout. > > > > Maybe we should teach respond_to about this: include a template only for > the > > main response (usually HTML), but implicitly turn of layout for others. > > People could then explicitly choose a layout for them. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
