I'm inclined to disagree with both approaches show here, if that's any help. As someone else pointed out, the html is in there even when written in CGI.pm notation.
It's not that perl is perl, as you put it: i think the rule should be more abstract: 'programming is programming and presentation is presentation'. the scripts should deal with data, and if a public face is involved then leave the designers to design it and just hand them the data later. It's good politics, apart from anything else.
If it's any comfort, i go through this sort of audit/replace/reject all the time, and it's much more painful when the person who wrote the idiot spaghetti was you and it was only six months ago and you thought it was kind of cool at the time :(
In reply to Re: Why use HTML instead of CGI? (codediscussion)
by thpfft
in thread Why use HTML instead of CGI? (code, discussion)
by deprecated
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |