In section 5, Terence Parr defines a template as:
A template is an output document with embedded actions that the engine evaluates when rendering the template.

SSI

Server-side includes can be considered templating.

Print statement

How about this program: 
out.println("<html>");
out.println("<body>");
out.println("<h1>Servlet test</h1>");
String name = request.getParameter("name");
out.println("Hello, "+name+".");
out.println("</body>");
out.println("</html>");

[download]
is this a template?
output document
I dont see an output document... maybe the subroutine can be considered an output document.
The embedded actions?
I guess string concatenation.
Engine?
The engine in this case is the Java programming language.

real templating

There's no question that HTML::Mason, etc are template engines

Seamstress?

I'm not so sure that HTML::Seamstress has templates. Let's look at the definition again:
output document
an HTML file... so far so good.
The embedded actions?
There really are none. An XHTML compliant file doesnt necessarily have embedded actions.
Engine?
The engine in this case is not-fixed. There is no fixed way of looking at an XHTML file that forces it to be dynamically produced in any particular way. Template engines have a fixed way of looking at embedded actions. Let's example a bit of SYNOPSIS code from the Petal distro: 
  <html xmlns:tal="http://purl.org/petal/1.0/">
    <body tal:content="bar">Dummy_Content</body>
  </html>

[download]
Petal has one way of processing that body tag: it will do a replacement. Seamstress has no fixed protocol between Perl and HTML. It could do a replacement there. But it could also simulate the INCLUDE mechanism of another template system and locate a file named bar.html and inline it. Or it could locate a method named bar and call it. No fixed protocol.

Dynamic HTML production... without templating

Templating engines are designed to ease text production and may or may not have special support for HTML. HTML::Seamstress is designed solely for object-oriented HTML production. So there is some overlap between the functionality of templating systems and a dynamic HTML generation API, but they dont serve all the same purposes or have the same set of functional components.

Opinions encouraged

I am curious about whether you agree or disagree with my position and why.

In reply to HTML::Seamstress is not a templating engine? by metaperl

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.