Christian Haselbach wrote: > > First of all, why wouldn't you want to use pure HTML templates? > What are the benefits of using something else or even something new? > > Even though I (almost) never look at the templates using a special html > editor or browser, there are two advantages: > 1) If your editor knows about html (and most editors do), it will > support you correctly. > 2) You do not need to learn yet another thing. > > And you can also use this mechanism to generate other doctypes which are > similar enough to html. >
Well, support from the html-aware editor is interesting idea, however you also get it if templating language without angle brackets is used - consider Velocity or FreeMaker. The same goes for other doctypes. Moreover I do need to learn another thing, because complex "multipart" components like contrib:Table when shoehorned into jwcid attributes do look, well, counterintuitive. Anyway, Jonathan's suggestion about ease of CSS use is the most appealing to me, because nowadays CSS finally became the most powerful facility for determining style and position of elements on a page. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-are-benefits-of-pure-HTML-templates--tf3803593.html#a10776543 Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
