[web-devel] Fwd: proposal for hamlet-like syntax that is more compatible with html

Michael Snoyman michael at snoyman.com
Sun Dec 12 20:55:07 CET 2010 

Sorry, forgot to reply to all...


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [web-devel] proposal for hamlet-like syntax that is more
compatible with html
To: Greg Weber <greg at gregweber.info>


On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Greg Weber <greg at gregweber.info> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback on the proposal. It is good to hear some criticism-
> that means there are people using hamlet! So we have heard from current
> users now- can we get feedback from those not using hamlet? Does the new
> syntax tempt you into switching? If you were forced into a project with
> hamlet, which syntax would you like best? Does anyone think that designers
> would be more comfortable with the new syntax?
> I would like to note another possible benefit to the proposal noted by a
> commenter on Michael's blog- the removal of the '%' character means that
> instead of signifying variable interpolation with '$' it could be done with
> the '%', making the syntax uniform across hamlet, cassius, and julius.
> I would like to be clear on the design goal of being closer to html. All
> other things being equal, it is simply about avoiding a larger mental
> overhead when switching between html and hamlet. The new syntax does not
> mean we are "writing html" or have any "constraints" not already present in
> hamlet. It simply means attributes use a space instead of a '!', and tags
> begin with a '<' instead of a '%', and are separated with their inner text
> by a '>' instead of a space. While the proposal discusses the possibility of
> allowing things like closing tags, that would be optional if it were
> implemented.
> Reducing the mental "context switch" could be useful for existing hamlet
> users that also works with html in other projects. But it is largely about
> getting more users of hamlet, particularly when they start a new project. I
> would not expect many projects to switch a project over, and closeness to
> html when switching an existing project over doesn't matter much once
> converters are available, and the larger the project, the more practical it
> is to write a converter. I see the real practical use on a smaller scale- if
> you want to copy and paste some html into your file, including html from a
> more traditional templating language where a converter may not available.
> Space-based attributes:
> Are there any objection to the *concept* of the change to use a space with
> attributes instead of a '!'?. This would actually make hamlet *more* similar
> to HAML.
> The difficulty in implementation is with determining the end of the
> attribute portion of the tag. For '%body id=the-body' there would be
> ambiguity as to whether the id started an attribute or inner text. Even
> worse is an attribute without a value 'input type=checkbox checked'. One
> technique is to assume it is an attribute if an '=' sign is present-
> requiring escaping the '=' sign, and requiring a (possibly empty) value for
> every attribute. HAML handles attributes by requiring opening and closing
> symbole: '(attribute=name attribute2=name)', which looks nice, but I would
> much rather have white space to begin attributes, and the closing character
> is forced on you when there is no inner text.
> Following my original proposal, the attributes could have a closing
> character that is optional when there is no text.
>  %body id=the-body class=the-class>Inner Text
> I could appreciate that this might look peculiar to someone when the tag
> leads with a '%' instead of a '<' as in the original proposal. I think '&'
> could be a lot more appealing and signifies 'and there is text', also
> similar to how it signifies more parameters in a url.
>  %body id=the-body class=the-class&Inner Text
> So I am still proposing the original proposal. If the original is not
> accepted, or if we want more time to think about it or otherwise an
> intermediate step is desired I would still propose using a space-based
> attribute syntax. We could also consider the possibility of allowing both
> the '%&' and the '<>' syntaxes now that they would be very similar. However,
> I would strongly argue for using the html-compatible syntax. Those whose
> senses are offended by a lone opening '<' can still add the '>' and justify
> that it prepares them for adding inner text.

I'm actually thinking that a good first step on this proposal is
simply adding the <> syntax in addition to what we already have. For
example:

%foo!bar=baz This is something

is equivalent to

<foo bar=baz> This is something

Without introducing any other changes. I originally did not like the
idea of "two hamlets", but I'm beginning to warm up to it as an
intermediate step. I'd even consider leaving both of them in there
indefinitely, though I'm not sure that's the best idea.

I very much would *not* like to implement a proposal such as % and
whitespace attributes, eg:

%foo bar=baz&This is something

I don't like this for two reasons:

1) It's almost, but not quite, what we have right now. I'd much rather
do a *big* change over to <> so that it's obvious that a change has
occurred.
2) I don't want to start gobbling up more symbols.

I also am not really interested in using the percent sign for variable
interpolation in Hamlet/Cassius: dollar sign is well established for
this in many languages, and I only grudgingly used the percent sign in
Julius because of jQuery.

If I'm not mistaken Greg, this means the part of your proposal which
is being excluded by this proposal would be multi-line tags, is that
correct?

Michael

> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:00 AM, <web-devel-request at haskell.org> wrote:
>>
>> Send web-devel mailing list submissions to
>>        web-devel at haskell.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>        http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>        web-devel-request at haskell.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>        web-devel-owner at haskell.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of web-devel digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. Re: proposal for hamlet-like syntax that is more compatible
>>      with html (Michael Snoyman)
>>   2. Re: proposal for hamlet-like syntax that is more compatible
>>      with html (Alexandros Salazar)
>>   3. Re: proposal for hamlet-like syntax that is more compatible
>>      with html (Alexander Dunlap)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:48:48 +0200
>> From: Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
>> Subject: Re: [web-devel] proposal for hamlet-like syntax that is more
>>        compatible with html
>> To: Simon Michael <simon at joyful.com>
>> Cc: web-devel at haskell.org
>> Message-ID:
>>        <AANLkTinumxoNV-efehgrVBUnoNUYvRB1ijC01aN6Pv=6 at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> Alright, at this point I've only heard positive things about this
>> syntax change. Does anyone want to volunteer to try and tackle this,
>> or will this need to wait till I can get around to it? Fair warning:
>> I'm likely to try to deal with the WAI + enumerator and xml-enumerator
>> tasks first. If someone wants to take a crack at the Hamlet changes,
>> I'll be happy to review things.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Simon Michael <simon at joyful.com> wrote:
>> > I support this proposal's goal, and would be fine with rewriting my
>> > templates.
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > web-devel mailing list
>> > web-devel at haskell.org
>> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:17:37 -0500
>> From: Alexandros Salazar <nomothetis at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [web-devel] proposal for hamlet-like syntax that is more
>>        compatible with html
>> To: web-devel at haskell.org
>> Message-ID:
>>        <AANLkTikxJfPFOnD8Fzo9-bpH9g8Z6S6n8aCwB9+kvbAM at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> My belated 2c (sorry, work has been keeping me away from things Yesod and
>> Haskell):
>>
>> 1. The key reason I switched to Yesod was Hamlet. I'm very new to Haskell,
>> and I wanted to try developing a webapp in it; when I looked at the
>> various
>> frameworks, my main question was "What will require me to learn the least
>> new stuff, while still giving me a full Haskell-based development
>> experience?" Yesod was the answer, because I was already familiar with
>> Haml.
>> So, it is one less thing a large swath of people need to learn when they
>> decide to give Yesod a try. And at least in my case, it was a deciding
>> factor.
>>
>> 2. I'm not convinced closeness to HTML is a design goal. My experience is
>> again limited, but I wouldn't expect many people to switch existing
>> projects
>> to Yesod (or really, from any framework to any other); therefore, the idea
>> that someone will have a bunch of HTML to be converted as simply as
>> possible
>> to whatever templating language we use seems remote.
>>
>> 3. Along the same lines, the reason for the existence of templating
>> frameworks like Haml and Hamlet is precisely that people don't enjoy
>> writing
>> HTML: why would we constrain ourselves by similarity to something people
>> have put large (and creative) amounts of effort into avoiding? I think it
>> is
>> unduly limiting.
>>
>> 4. I do believe there are some issues with Hamlet; in fact, the issues
>> raised by Greg are exactly the issues I have. I don't see having a
>> Yesod-specific templating language as the solution, unless this new syntax
>> gives Yesod such a big productivity boost compared to using Hamlet that
>> it's
>> worth putting in the effort.
>>
>> In brief, I think Hamlet is 95% of the way there, and that Michael has
>> done
>> a great job with it. It seems easier to take it another 4% and get it to
>> 99%
>> than it would be to rewrite the syntax from scratch. I don't view HTML
>> similarity as a bonus (or a malus, either way). Maintaining (and
>> furthering)
>> similarity with Haml seems worthier goal, given how many people use it,
>> are
>> familiar with it, and love it; it will ease adoption.
>>
>> I hope this all made sense, and that I didn't start an argument about bike
>> shed colors... ;-)
>>
>> Alexandros
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Michael Snoyman
>> <michael at snoyman.com>wrote:
>>
>> > Alright, at this point I've only heard positive things about this
>> > syntax change. Does anyone want to volunteer to try and tackle this,
>> > or will this need to wait till I can get around to it? Fair warning:
>> > I'm likely to try to deal with the WAI + enumerator and xml-enumerator
>> > tasks first. If someone wants to take a crack at the Hamlet changes,
>> > I'll be happy to review things.
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Simon Michael <simon at joyful.com> wrote:
>> > > I support this proposal's goal, and would be fine with rewriting my
>> > > templates.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > web-devel mailing list
>> > > web-devel at haskell.org
>> > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel
>> > >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > web-devel mailing list
>> > web-devel at haskell.org
>> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel
>> >
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/web-devel/attachments/20101211/1d41e534/attachment-0001.htm>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:32:51 -0800
>> From: Alexander Dunlap <alexander.dunlap at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [web-devel] proposal for hamlet-like syntax that is more
>>        compatible with html
>> To: Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
>> Cc: Simon Michael <simon at joyful.com>, web-devel at haskell.org
>> Message-ID:
>>        <AANLkTinqnFVeCyOHLudnxpKGXWXFGmsHrFVX=6eBTivr at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> I would prefer that the bikeshed stay the color it already is. ;) The
>> syntax is easier for me as it is different from HTML. The HTML-like
>> syntax looks to me like invalid HTML and is more difficult to read.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Alright, at this point I've only heard positive things about this
>> > syntax change. Does anyone want to volunteer to try and tackle this,
>> > or will this need to wait till I can get around to it? Fair warning:
>> > I'm likely to try to deal with the WAI + enumerator and xml-enumerator
>> > tasks first. If someone wants to take a crack at the Hamlet changes,
>> > I'll be happy to review things.
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Simon Michael <simon at joyful.com> wrote:
>> >> I support this proposal's goal, and would be fine with rewriting my
>> >> templates.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> web-devel mailing list
>> >> web-devel at haskell.org
>> >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > web-devel mailing list
>> > web-devel at haskell.org
>> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> web-devel mailing list
>> web-devel at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel
>>
>>
>> End of web-devel Digest, Vol 16, Issue 6
>> ****************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> web-devel mailing list
> web-devel at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel
>
>

More information about the web-devel mailing list