Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:26:09 -0300, trsvax <trsvax@> wrote: > >> You still need the CDATA but I'd say the benefits of tml files being >> valid XML easily out weight the drawbacks. > > Agreed. In addition, to support other formats besides XML, we would need > to write a parser for it. Not easy, not quick. >
While I understand the benefits of a well formed document and certainly do understand the time cost associated with writing such a parser, it still creates conditions where a client side developer is going to experience the need to create a work around to perform a task that is an out of the box normal feature of HTML5. I think in many ways that leads to a lot of bad practices in order to get around these imposed limitations. Just ask any client side developer that has worked at PayPal, which had an XML translation layer to deliver HTML 4 back in the day. It was poorly implemented, and let to a lot of hacks just to get something out the door. In other words, a nightmare. IMHO, if something claims to support a version of HTML, then it should allow for advanced full usage without the training wheels if it's needed. Something like passing a script tag template has been around for several years and as of now, really isn't something you should have to write a workaround to implement in the codebase. I'll get off my soap box for now. Thanks for the input. :) -- View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Tapestry-and-inline-Handlebars-js-tp5660756p5663510.html Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
