[Zope] <% ... %> ?
Alexander Staubo
alex@mop.no
Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:31:03 +0200
Oops, my line
<var>title_or_id</var><html:br>
would of course be
<var>title_or_id</var><html:br/>
Again, this is something of a headache. And we haven't even mentioned
SQL Methods yet.
(And sorry about the text wrapping. It shouldn't so hard to figure out
though.)
--
Alexander Staubo http://www.mop.no/~alex/
"`This must be Thursday,' said Arthur to himself, sinking low over
his beer, `I never could get the hang of Thursdays.'"
--Douglas Adams, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alexander Staubo [mailto:alex@mop.no]
>Sent: 11. juni 1999 23:27
>To: 'Zope Mailing List (E-mail)'
>Subject: RE: [Zope] <% ... %> ?
>
>
>Very lucid and intelligent discussion, Paul. As an eager fan
>of XML, I second the idea to push XHTML as the next-generation
>Zope DTML syntax.
>
>If this is the goal, the "tag" syntax currently used by Zope
>can be preserved, with some modifications.
>
>I've jotted down a few examples of how such a modified syntax
>might look, at least as I see it. At least this is one
>possible angle. (Note: Best read in a monospaced font.)
>
> XML syntax:: Equivalent legacy syntax::
>
> <zope:tree expr="PARENTS[-1]"> <!--#tree
>expr="PARENTS[-1]"-->
> ... stuff ... ... stuff ...
> </zope:tree> <!--#/tree-->
>
> <zope:var expr="id()"/> <!--#var expr="id()"-->
>
> <zope:var obj="standard_html_header"/> <!--#var
>standard_html_header-->
>
> <zope:var>index_html</zope:var> <!--#var index_html-->
>
>For non-XMLists, notice the use of the slash ("/") character
>to close up empty elements. Also note how all parameters to a
>tag are wrapped in true attributes. Something like <var "foo">
>simply isn't permitted.
>
>Here's a sample of specifying a default namespace, so you that
>you use Zope tags without qualifying them with the "zope"
>namespace. Notice how this -- if it is to be done cleanly --
>requires that you prefix HTML tags with the "html" namespace.
>I have not decided whether this is entirely necessary, since
>Zope will preprocess the DTML and in this case, would have to
>remote the "html:" prefix anyway.
>
> <in xmlns="http://www.zope.org/schema/1.0"
>expr="objectValues('DTML Document')">
> <var>title_or_id</var><html:br>
> </in>
>
>Unfortunately, the idea that you can write something like <var
>standard_html_header> is rescinded by XML, unless ASP-like
>"blocks" of code as Jules Allen proposes can be included.
>Given the current syntax I can't conceive of a way that this
>can be done elegantly -- the minute we step into
>"ASP-like"-ness, we're in the realm of "defining a new
>language". While Jules' example syntax would certainly work on
>a technical level, the question is, as much as we abhor the
>current SSI syntax, do we really want to become more like ASP?
>
>--
>Alexander Staubo http://www.mop.no/~alex/
>"`This must be Thursday,' said Arthur to himself, sinking low over
>his beer, `I never could get the hang of Thursdays.'"
>
>--Douglas Adams, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: zope-admin@zope.org [mailto:zope-admin@zope.org]On
>Behalf Of Paul
>>Everitt
>>Sent: 11. juni 1999 20:09
>>To: 'Jules Allen'; zope@zope.org
>>Subject: RE: [Zope] <% ... %> ?
>>
>>
>>
>>Jules wrote:
>>> Has it been suggested that the SSI-type syntax of Zope
>isn't the most
>>> readable thing in the world? Is this even the right list to
>>> suggest this
>>> heresy or should I strap on the asbestos underwear and wander
>>> over to zopedev?
>>
>>I'll comment first on the multiline statement. Let me reinforce the
>>idea that The Zope Way is to separate presentation and logic.
> While we
>>should have some kind of object that better deals with logic, I don't
>>think there will be much sympathy for creating something that
>>looks like
>>ASP or PHP.
>>
>>Let me limit the conversation back to your subject line: <% vs. <!--#
>>
>>The latter was originally chosen to be like the dominant syntax at the
>>time (SSI) and to be "legal HTML". I think the latter has
>proven to be
>>total bunk, as almost no DTML Documents are valid (they get nearly
>>everything from the fragments of standard header and footer).
>>
>>What are some reasons to consider changing from the SSI syntax?
>>
>> o It's hideous, cumbersome, and everybody hates it
>>
>> o No tools support editing it
>>
>> o It isn't conformant with the direction of HTML
>>
>> o Any others?
>>
>>Let's evaluate the situation in light of these.
>>
>>It's Hideous
>>------------
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>Tool Support
>>------------
>>
>>The SSI syntax just happens to enjoy nearly zero support out there.
>>Things like Netscape Composer, Dreamweaver, and Emacs HTML Mode just
>>can't be convinced to handle it nicely.
>>
>>Does anyone view this issue as important?
>>
>>Future of HTML
>>--------------
>>
>>What role does SSI play in the future of HTML? Zero. Of course,
>>neither do any of the alternative syntaxes mentioned previously.
>>
>>Thus, I'd like to list some requirements for a future syntax:
>>
>>1) Within reach of "content managers". I won't budge on this one. I
>>think XSL will have a role in Zope, but *NOT* as a DTML replacement.
>>
>>2) Reasonably close to DTML. The current DTML accomplishes some level
>>of functionality. While some small amount might not be permitted in
>>some change, or might be permitted in a clumsy way, there should be a
>>reasonable match.
>>
>>3) Coherent with the HTML future. We have a choice: invent a syntax
>>and, one by one, support every web authoring tool. Alternatively, we
>>can stick to standards and wait for them to support it.
>>
>>Proposal
>>--------
>>
>>_If_ these were the requirements, then I think a reasonable
>proposal is
>>XHTML:
>>
>> http://wdvl.com/Authoring/Languages/XML/XHTML/
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/#future
>>
>>XHTML reworks HTML as an XML-compliant language. Most imporantly, you
>>can extend it with new namespaces (like Zope instructions) without
>>breaking the DTD, as is the case with ColdFusion et al.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>1) Alledgely it is the future of HTML.
>>
>>2) Becoming well-formed means the authors can be given hints before
>>saving changes, and Zope can do smarter things with structured data on
>>the server.
>>
>>Why Not?
>>
>>1) A number of differences with HTML might drive people off.
>>
>>2) It isn't here yet.
>>
>>3) Zope syntax might not be mappable into XML.
>>
>>At any rate, I'd love for someone in the Zope community to
>>march off and
>>take a look at this, then make a proposal for how things should be
>>changed. As always, patches are accepted. :^)
>>
>>--Paul
>>
>>Paul Everitt Digital Creations
>>paul@digicool.com 540.371.6909
>>-----------------------------------------
>>The Open Source Zope application server
>>http://www.zope.org/
>>-----------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
>>http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
>>
>>(For developer-specific issues, use the companion list,
>>zope-dev@zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
>>
>