Actually, there are enough reasons for sticking with HTML. Especially
interesting is the point how most Browsers consume XHTML, to be found
in [1], section "HTML-compatible XHTML".
Hi Florian,
I hadn't seen this article, but I'm quite familiar with the differences.
Generating (X)HTML with Tagz will be handy, but it isn't my primary
interest.
All the better :). It's just that I see a lot of aggressive talk against
HTML from people that don't really know the striking differences between both.
I want a really slick tool/syntax for generating complex XML documents
using multiple namespaces and processing instructions. I've been doing
this in various ways for several years, and nearly all of them suck --
equally and in different ways.
That would be great. I haven't used many tools, but I know your problem.
Tagz is the first thing I've seen (accidentally, I might add) that
finally allowed me to write quasi-markup in code vs. the other way
around. It's also quite timely, because I once again need to generate a
bunch of XML, but this time I'm using Ruby and it's looking like I'll be
adopting Tagz across the board for what I'm doing.
Well, I already liked builder, but tagz has a fine way of circumventing
the problems that plague builder.
If I ever meet Ara, I'm buying him a pint!
Somebody made someone happy ;).
Regards,
Florian
···
On Mar 27, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Andrew S. Townley wrote:
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 03:12 +0900, Florian Gilcher wrote:
On Mar 27, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Andrew S. Townley wrote:
On Mar 27, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Andrew S. Townley wrote:
I want a really slick tool/syntax for generating complex XML documents
using multiple namespaces and processing instructions. I've been doing
this in various ways for several years, and nearly all of them suck --
equally and in different ways.
--
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. simply reflect on that.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama
Still, I think I'd prefer to go with Tagz + the Namespace and processing
instruction support I proposed (or something similar).
Is there a reason you think this might be more suitable?
···
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 05:16 +0900, ara.t.howard wrote:
On Mar 27, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Andrew S. Townley wrote:
> I want a really slick tool/syntax for generating complex XML documents
> using multiple namespaces and processing instructions. I've been
> doing
> this in various ways for several years, and nearly all of them suck --
> equally and in different ways.
