One of the addition benefits of Template (beyond what merlyn said),There is nothing that merlyn listed in his post that shows an advantage of Template over HTML::Template. He did place it on equal ground but did not state any features it held that HTML::Template did not.
is that Template is language neutral, and as WAP-enabled sites become more common, using Template over HTML::Template may become beneficial, since all you need to do for delieving WAP vs HTML is change the template file; you should not have to touch any perl code save to point the Template processor to the right place. And then adding text-only becomes simplier as well.Your point about easily changing the display method from HTML to something else is well-taken as an advantage of Template It was a key point in davorg's article which I found on his website and which seems to have vaporized from perl.com However, consider this part of your statement:
you should not have to touch any perl code save to point the Template processor to the right place.
But the obvious question is: you will have to change the display code, right? How would one change all the HTML tags to the formatting conventions of another format? Ie, plain text, XML, HTML, or WAP? One way would be to code in "Template HTML" so that you could transform all the tags at once, ie:
[% H1 %] This is a header [% OL %] [% LI %] we can make an HTML file if we want, [% LI %] but we could make some thing else [% LI %] just as easy. [% OL %]
This is just brainstorming. I don't have a full answer.
In reply to Re: Re: Web Application Frameworks and their Templating Engines with a Comparative Study of Template and HTML::Template
in thread Web Application Frameworks and their Templating Engines with a Comparative Study of Template and HTML::Template by princepawn
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>