Re^2: Code and html separation - always or mostly doable?

I can't validate my code in BBEDIT because it stumbles over all the H::T stuff. A bit frustrating

HTML::Template allows you to put your TMPL_VAR, TMPL_LOOP, and other directives inside HTML comments, e.g.  is the same as <TMPL_VAR NAME=foo>. Unless your HTML editing tool mangles comments, this should allow you to have your cake and eat it too.

HTH

Comment on Re^2: Code and html separation - always or mostly doable? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3:Code and html separation - always or mostly doable? by bradcathey (Prior) on Jun 16, 2004 at 18:10 UTC
True facts, revdiablo, but as I pointed out in my orig. reply, the H::T manpages state that the commented directives have a negative effect on bandwidth (but I might be misunderstanding their comment). I prolly should run some of my own tests. Thanks. Update: Per revdiablo's reply, below, the comment issue is one I need to look into, both for validation and readibility issues, aforementioned. —Brad "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up. " G. K. Chesterton	[reply]
Re^4: Code and html separation - always or mostly doable? by revdiablo (Prior) on Jun 16, 2004 at 18:18 UTC
The template directives are removed before the page is actually sent over the network, so I don't see how it would have any effect on bandwidth, one way or another. As for the comment in the POD about "dramatic savings in bandwidth," I believe they are making a joke. The size of the POD would be dramatically smaller without using comment-style directives, thus saving huge amounts of bandwidth transmitting the documentation. Update: for what it's worth, when I wrote my first reply, I did miss the part of your original post where you mention the comment-style directives. I apologize for that, but hopefully this post will reassure you of their use in the future.	[reply]