in reply to RFC - Template::Empty

I like it.

stiller mentions above that "... this approach looses something I really like about Template: solid visual clues to the web-designers about what they must not change..." That's fine, because there are plenty of solutions out there that are geared towards the web designer and programmer being separate. This is a neat solution for those who are doing both ends of the design, as it eliminates the interim templating language step.

Like you, I never had the patience to learn a templating module beyond the simple (but great) HTML::Template. That's not too ideal because for some things that HTML::Template doesn't handle, I end up mixing some HTML into my Perl and outputting that into the template.

Again, I like it, and think it would be a good solution for people who do both the web design and the programming but want to keep their HTML and Perl somewhat separate.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC - Template::Empty
by Spidy (Chaplain) on Feb 25, 2008 at 16:18 UTC
    I agree with amarquis.

    I like the way that it allows you to write pure HTML, and pure Perl - without intermixing any of them.

    When I'm working on my own projects, I generally use HTML::Template - but even then, the custom tags and such always bothered me. It looks like Template::Empty would nicely clean that up, although I think it needs support for looping elements - like tr's, li's, etc. - before I'd be able to use it very effectively.

    website army
[reply]

In Section Meditations