alex at blackkettle.org
Thu Dec 10 07:45:09 PST 2009
Anthony Green wrote:
>> Isn't it time you all gave in and used haml? Come on - you know it
>> makes sense....
> I've always dismissed HAML as one of those project 'where the devil makes
> work for idle hands'
> I'm not convinced by the need for an abstraction that seems to require such
> cognitive adjustment from the final output.
Except it doesn't, if you're actually thinking in terms of the document
structure in the first place rather than just slinging a bunch of tags
together. I personally find it far easier to read and understand a HAML
original than its HTML equivalent, which means that when I modify it I'm
less likely to do so in a way that breaks its structure (as a document,
rather than as HTML).
> As a Semantic HTML Web Standardista I also presumed it could only lead to
> more terrible HTML code.
I'm not quite sure what you'd count as "terrible". IDs and classes have
excellent support, so that side of things is encouraged, but I'm not up
to speed with Semantic HTML to know whether there's a right and a wrong
way to use them. I can guess that <div class="invoice"> is right, but
<div class="paragraph"> and <div class="left-float"> are wrong... is
there much more to it than that?
More information about the Chat