On 30 juin, 21:34, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:49 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Then what is so *good* about it, why embedding HTML into Python is not > > > good? > > > Who said embedding HTML in Python was bad ? Did you _carefully_ read > > John's question ?-) > > I should have say "why embedding HTML into Python is not good > enough?" ;=)
Every time I took this road (be it only because I was too lazy to install and set up an existing templating package), I ended up writing yet another half-backed templating system. > > wrt/ what's so good about it: web designers are usually better at > > working with this approach (whatever scripting language embedded in > > html) than they are writing Python code - either as plain strings or > > using a more declarative syntax like the one provided by Stan or > > I keep reading this argument that some mythical 'web designers' are > usually > better at working with this abracadabra (TAL etc.). BTW, most of the > times > it is used by programmers :). Your experience. Not mine. In my shop, 80% of "template code" (from ZPT to raw PHP including various templating systems) is written by web designers. Same pattern in my previous shop FWIW. > > equivalent html generators. But nothing prevents you from using > > Mako's internals directly if you find it easier and more > > maintainable !-) > > Yea, that is a perfect and universal advise - use whatever fits you > best!;:=} Which is probably why all designers I know prefer the 'script in html' approach - it fits how *they* perceive dynamic html generation : it's html *plus* a couple simple instructions/special markup/etc to handle the dynamic part. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
