cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <dani...@nada.kth.se>
Subject Re: JXTG: Imposible test case.
Date Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:01:51 GMT
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> On Sab, 4 de Diciembre de 2004, 10:22, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo: 
<snip/>
> I never used Dreamwaver (not sure if this is a shame to me). What I use is
> jEdit - http://www.jedit.org/ . It is only a 2.5MB java installer + some
> cool plugins. If what we need is a syntax checker + highlighting for JTXG,
> we can write it for jEdit:
> 
> http://www.jedit.org/42docs/api/org/gjt/sp/jedit/syntax/package-summary.html

Its not about syntax checking its about WYSIWYG for the HTML, read 
Stefano's and Niclas' answers.

> It is easier that refactor a language just to fit in a tool. BTW, I never
> heard about a similar case before. ;-)

>>And if one put the directives
>>in attributes instead of elements with special namespaces that works
>>much better. The attribute based languages might be less verbose and
>>easier to read also.
> 
> Why? To me this a matter of taste.

If taste not is important for you, it shouldn't matter ;)

>>I think, as I hinted about in my RT about Attribute Driven Templates,
>>that we basically can allow both attribute driven and tag driven
>>templates from the same implementation.
> 
> 
> If people blame us because they can use #{$...} or ${...} I don't know
> what to expect by adding new istructions syntax. The result seems to be:
> "more troubles than help."
> 
> 
>>So we could resue the JXTG tags as attribute directives and
>>avoid the need for maintaining double implementations.
> 
> 
> See the last comment. While I understand a potentiall "gain" from the
> developers POV. I see a nightmare for users. ;-)

As said above, read Stefano's and Niclas mails for motivation and 
explanation about why it would be very usefull for some users.

/Daniel

Mime
View raw message