I apologize for the unintentional insult. In retrospect "silly" was a
poor choice of words, and certainly not directed at you specifically,
Jannis. Your opinion is plenty valid, even if we disagree.
The real crux of my argument is this: Django's philosophy of keeping
programming concerns out of templates is a great principle; however,
it creeps into a tacit implication that template authors (in other
words, designers) need to be treated with kid gloves. As someone who
actually came up *as a designer* before I ever learned to code, and
who has been very involved in design communities in the past, I find
the implied necessity of readability specifically for "the target
audience" (designers) mildly pejorative. I'm sure it's not always
meant that way, but that's how it feels when I read these types of
rationales. I'm +1 on readability for readability's sake. -1 on
readability for the sake of "the target audience".
Getting back to the real subject at hand, I like the general human
readability of your syntax (and the current syntax in general), I just
like the "=" a little more. I'm +1 on "=", and +0 on "... as ...".
Either one gets the job done and I'd gladly accept either as they both
solve the same problems.
Thanks!
- Gabriel
On Nov 10, 1:36 am, Jannis Leidel <jan...@leidel.info> wrote:
> On 10.11.2010, at 09:20, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In a fit of coincidental timing, I was just being frustrated by this
> > very issue with inclusion tags today. I'm +1 on supporting kwargs with
> > "=". It is in fact *more* familiar to someone who works with HTML to
> > be able to assign attributes in arbitrary order, for example:
>
> > <a href="http://example.com"; class="green" id="my_id">
>
> > works the same as:
>
> > <a id="my_id" class="green" href="http://example.com";>
>
> > whereas this is just nonsense:
>
> > <a "http://example.com"; "my_id" "green">
>
> > and this is even more broken:
>
> > <ahttp://example.comas src and my_id as id and green as class>
>
> While I appreciate that you think that's a fact, comparing HTML semantics
> with those of the template language doesn't proof anything, at the most shows
> that they both have the concept of parameters. If that's all you are implying
> we should probably move to using arrow brackets?
>
> > So any argument about not using kwargs being "for template authors"
> > seems a bit silly to me. Designers may not be programmers (though many
> > of them are these days), but the reality of the tools they already use
> > is that this is a familiar syntax.
>
> Please stop trying to make a point by calling my argument silly. I've voiced
> my strong concerns about the proposed change but agreed with a different
> proposal.
>
> Jannis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 7:16 pm, Peter Baumgartner <sgt.hu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:37 AM, silent1mezzo <adammcker...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> +1 for {% include "foo.html" x=1 y=2 %}
>
> >>> This just seems more natural. My designer agreed based on the {% url
> >>> %} tags.
>
> >> +1 for using the = syntax here. My reasons have been mentioned above,
> >> but to recap:
>
> >> * and/as gets too verbose and difficult to read if you add more than a
> >> couple variables
> >> * HTML uses "=" to set attributes, so this shouldn't be a new paradigm
> >> for template authors
>
> >> -- Pete
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
