http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=124335


in reply to Re: HTML and Perl need not commingle in the least bit
in thread rant on = qw(HTML::Mason Embperl Template etc) ;

You will still need to instruct the HTML person on what, in particular, "$s->{supply}->Next" means.
Mmm, sorta but not really. The process is, the designer creates the dummy page and then I mark it up with tihs Perl code... actually. lachoy's link to XMLC is solid gold... that's the right way to do this. HTML::Seamstress sucks... it's time to do XMLC for Perl...
Now, I will say again that I think using SGML-like markup to embed what you what as indicated by the H::S docs is a good step;
Thanks Masem, I appreciate your word of approval. It makes me feel good that someone sees where I'm coming from on this.
As a suggestion, I would suggest trying to convert the perl-ish code in the tags into something that can be convert back to perl code, but looking more like VBasic.
Yeah, an earlier version of my HTML::TreeBuilder parser did in fact do that via Data::Dref... but just as Dominus states in the pre-amble to his module Text::Template... when people design mini-languages, they are happy with it and then thye realize they need this. Then that. Then the other. Pretty soon they've reinvented Perl with new syntax (paraphrase). And that was what I found out with my dot-dref syntax. It was really cute and it made a lot of the stuff you saw in the SYNOPSIS a lot more clean-looking but lateron it made doing harder things in Perl very awkward.

Again, thanks for your comments.

  • Comment on Re: Re: HTML and Perl need not commingle in the least bit

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: HTML and Perl need not commingle in the least bit
by perrin (Chancellor) on Nov 09, 2001 at 20:22 UTC
    HTML_Tree == XMLC for Perl, doesn't it?