> Is this conversation is moving in the direction of deeper changes
> to the "WebObjects HTML" than the simple <wo abbreviation and OGnl
> enhancements?
>
> Is it sacrilege for me to suggest that some of us write up a
> proposal (deadline WWDC) that we take to the larger community? I
> know many have 'given up' on Apple, but they still hold a measure
> of control over the product that makes me nervous when we consider
> forking a WOLips special specification for the HTML. With ideas
> and code changes in WOLips coming fast in this area, I wouldn't
> want us to paint ourselves into a corner.
>
> Maybe all the key players are already in this mailing list, and
> maybe any such fork in the HTML can still be coped with by the
> overload of the shipping parser, but I am concerned about the day
> that someone not using the WOLips inherits my code, or (gasp) the
> day Apple rewrites WOBuilder (dreaming) ... Gav
* WOLips and Wonder don't mandate that you change anything about your
template coding style. Wonder provides optional support for an
inline binding syntax that you can turn on should you choose to. As
a result, I also desire support in the template validator for these
as well. If you don't use them, the validator doesn't validate
them. Win-win there.
* If you want validation of your templates in WOLips, which is also
purely optional -- you can turn it off in wod preferences if you
don't like it for whatever reason -- the issue of "bad templates" has
to be addressed in some way. The most obvious way is to say "don't
do it." This is the stance I'm still taking at this point and is
obviously perfectly in line with Apple's released platform. However,
I'm willing to entertain validator hints that don't impact runtime
parsing (like comment syntax hints for closing tags), or possibly
adding additional attributes to <webobject ... > tags because the WO
parser does not care about these.
* As long as I'm one of the people working on it, I will always
support parsing core framework out-of-the-box templates for whatever
the current platform release is. Note this even means that I added
support for the bullshit invalid unquoted name=Whatever webobject
attributes that WOBuilder (used to? still does? who knows ...)
generates.
* I have not given up on Apple. They will carry forward with the
plans they have. I feel confident that WOLips is well-positioned to
support future platform enhancements. I think it's a reasonable
assumption for one to make that if Apple declares its own tools
deprecated and development of future tools to be in WOLips, that
development of WOLips would not be done blindly in this regard. That
Apple does not make its future plans public, but its tools are
developed in the open obviously makes this a bit of a curiosity to
watch.
ms
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed May 09 2007 - 12:12:19 EDT