On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de>
wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> > be the right choice there. For the others, couldn't it expand into a
> > 'class=' or 'id=' within the tag? So,
> >
> > x{myStyle
> > /{This is the text}
> > }
> >
> > would expand to,
> >
> > <span class=myStyle><i>This is the text</i></span>
> >
> >
> > and
> >
> > x{myStyle
> > 1{This is the header}
> > }
> >
> > would become,
> >
> > <h1 class=myStyle>This is the header</h1>
> >
> >
> > Maybe this makes it more makes it more complicated than it needs to
>
> This looks like a very good idea! Perhaps it is not complicated at all,
> if we utilize the '*Style' mechanism from @lib/xthml.l, which propagates
> down through the tag functions via 'dfltCss'.
>
> It is worth to be investigated more deeply!
>
>
>
I also think it¡s a great idea that worths to be investigated but maybe one
char only is a limitation because of being too ofuscated, for example the 1
in:
x{myStyle
1{This is the header}
}
may seem too obvious it refers to title 1 or heading 1 but the reality is
it is more a magic number rather a meaningful one. It would be better using
x{myStyle
h1{This is the header}
}
There're a lot of html tags and increasing so this could be a real problem.
In that sense I find more interesting, flexible and informative the use of
functions like in:
(h1 (class "myStyle") "this is the header")
