Need a name for YATP (templating package)

[gam3]

I am thinking of putting yet another template package on CPAN. I am planning to call it SST (super simple templates). But would like some advice on whether it should go in WWW or HTML.

I am open to any and all naming suggestions.

Why yatp? I wanted a package that seperates the web page design from the perl programming. The package that I am working on has two major features. The input template is valid HTML/XHTML. The program can test what data was displayed on the page.

An example

template

<span id="data1">This text will be replaced</span>
<ul id="list1">
 <li id="items">This will be replaced by each item</li>
</ul>

The perl code:

my $t = WWw/HTML::SST->new('templatefilename');

print $t->output(
    data1 => $t->replace(text => 'new text),
    list1 => $t->loop(
             headers => ['items'],
             data => [['item1'], ['item2']],
     ),
);

The output

 <span id="data1">new text</span>
 <ul id="list1">
  <li id="items.1">item1</li>
  <li id="items.2">item2</li>
 </ul>

[davido]

Personally, I wouldn't just happen to guess what SST stands for as I search CPAN for a templating package. Lets say that your module has three primary features:

1. It outputs XHTML
2. It's a templating utility.
3. It's simple.

So tell the world that in the package name:
XHTML::Template::Simple

That way when someone searches CPAN for XHTML and Template, they'll quickly understand what that module is for as they see it in the search results.

[punkish]

this post gets the "As simple and beautiful as the iPod" design award. Kudos davido++

[jbert]

Also looks a lot like Ruby's amrita.

I was just looking around for a perl version of that the other day, so I'm glad you're writing one.

Are you aware of Amrita? Do you have any design goals about compatability? It would be kind of cool if the same template could work with ruby or perl code.

I've not followed the amrita dev closely, but I saw some remarks that they had re-worked things a bit after the the first version, so there might be some useful lessons learned to pick up.

IMHO, it should go in HTML. It would be useful for manipulating HTML, irrespective of whether those pages were to be served via HTTP or made available to 'the web'. (Splitting hairs, I know, but hey.)

I'd also call it Atirma or something like that, personally :-)

[bart]

How about Template::Amrita, if the aim is to be as compatible with Amrita as possible... or XHTML::Template::Amrita, for the people who like it a bit more specific, as per davido's suggestion. (And I do think the "Simple" tag is a bit overused.)

[perrin]

It looks a lot like Petal.

[gam3]

Yes it does look alot like Petal. The problem with petal (at least for me) is that while petal templates are valid XML, they are not valid XHTML.

<span tal:replace="my_var/hello_world">Hola, Mundo!</span>

[perrin]

And this is worth writing a whole new system for? There's also Template::TAL and HTML::Seamstress, and there are undoudbtedly more pursuing this sort of approach.

[wazoox]

I very much like your templating system and am eager to try it from CPAN :) By the way, I support the excellent davido's suggestion of XHTML::Template::Simple.

[castaway]

AFAICA, "WWW::" is for modules which connect via HTTP to something and parse/use it.. e.g. WWW::Mechanise, WWW:Search etc. "HTML::" is for modules that produce or parse HTML, so I'll go with davidos suggestion too.

C.

[BUU]

So is the point of the template to make it completely impossible to guess what the output is going to be, merely by exmaining the template?

[gam3]

No! I think that is what CSS and JavaScript are for ;)