Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2003


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 47554
interpreted = N
texte = on 2/7/03 12:17 PM, Sales at sales@superiorshelving.com so noted...> I also get the impression that some people don't even like the new > style: >> Code on one line and conversion to ::shudder:: XML syntax necessary. >> : )That was me. Personally, I don't care for the XML syntax.Part of it is, having used WebDNA since '97, the classic style is pretty well ingrained.Also, the XML style is wordy. Take the example given for creating an array variable:[interpret][array[index]][/interpret]becomes:>All those DNA_s make it harder for me to see what the code is doing.Don't get me wrong, the XML syntax has its benefits. If I was working on pages containing WebDNA using a visual HTML editor, going with XML would make sense.The great thing is that you can make the decision yourself of what to go with, based upon your working style. Rob Marquardt Designer/Resident Wirehead Toast Design800 Washington Avenue North Minneapolis MN 55401 612.330.9863 v 612.321.9424 f www.toastdesign.com ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax (Velma Kahn 2003)
  2. Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax (Alex McCombie 2003)
  3. Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax (Donovan 2003)
  4. Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax (Rob Marquardt 2003)
  5. Old Style vs XML Syntax (Sales 2003)
on 2/7/03 12:17 PM, Sales at sales@superiorshelving.com so noted...> I also get the impression that some people don't even like the new > style: >> Code on one line and conversion to ::shudder:: XML syntax necessary. >> : )That was me. Personally, I don't care for the XML syntax.Part of it is, having used WebDNA since '97, the classic style is pretty well ingrained.Also, the XML style is wordy. Take the example given for creating an array variable:[interpret][array[index]][/interpret]becomes:>All those DNA_s make it harder for me to see what the code is doing.Don't get me wrong, the XML syntax has its benefits. If I was working on pages containing WebDNA using a visual HTML editor, going with XML would make sense.The great thing is that you can make the decision yourself of what to go with, based upon your working style. Rob Marquardt Designer/Resident Wirehead Toast Design800 Washington Avenue North Minneapolis MN 55401 612.330.9863 v 612.321.9424 f www.toastdesign.com ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Rob Marquardt

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

More on the email templates (I like it) (1997) Spontaneous Errors (2004) Clean Code: Rules for inserting keyboard returns? (1997) Text in coloums... (2000) Emailer 1.01 bombs (1997) [item] appears after 'remove last item' ... (1997) Followup question re: checksum for credit cards? (1997) Math, Multiple Equasions and Show/Hide (1998) Emailer [cart] file names (1997) Problems with Price field (1997) Quick Question (1997) Re:trouble (1997) [shell]? (2000) spaces in [texta] (1998) WebCat2b13 Command Reference Doc error (1997) WebCat2b13MacPlugin - [math][date][/math] problem (1997) Re2: frames & carts (1997) Pithy questions on webcommerce & siteedit (1997) E-mail Attachments (1997) wrong input values? (1997)