Re: HTML::Template vs. Template::Toolkit vs. ??

I use HTML::Mason these days, but only because i have used it now at 3 places of employment and have had the opportunity to work with some extremely bright developers at 2 of those places. I think reality has shown that the concept of passing off templates to HTML designers just isn't very practical. I have found myself having to massage their HTML into the web site regardless of how well the data was separated from the presentation. I am not saying it's a bad idea -- it's just an idea whose time already seemed to come and go.

jeffa

L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
-R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
H---H---H---H---H---H---
(the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)

Comment on Re: HTML::Template vs. Template::Toolkit vs. ??

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: HTML::Template vs. Template::Toolkit vs. ?? by metaperl (Curate) on Jan 08, 2009 at 14:29 UTC
jeffa do you have an example of "having to massage their HTML into the web site regardless of how well the data was separated from the presentation." I dont understand what you mean from a practical perspective.	[reply]
Re^3: HTML::Template vs. Template::Toolkit vs. ?? by jeffa (Bishop) on Jan 08, 2009 at 15:33 UTC
We tend to get a PDF that represents that web page. It's usually up to us to turn that into HTML. Since this HTML is then sliced up and component-ized, it becomes very cumbersome for an HTML designer to pull the pieces together in their environment. So, these days I only have separation concerns that address simple organization -- not work flow. Most environments just aren't as simple and self-contained as what CountZero describes. I wish they were. jeffa L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L-- -R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B-- H---H---H---H---H---H--- (the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)	[reply]