G’day:
Is using an empty “namespace” for .lucee tags really… a good thing? What
was the thinking there (that is not a passive aggressive way of saying “I
don’t think there was any”, it was a legit unloaded question).
It looks a bit odd, and despite empty namespaces being legit, it doesn’t
sit well with me for some reason.
EG:
<:script>
mail=evaluate(url.mail);</:script><:if hasMail>
<:mail subject=mail.subject from=mail.from to=mail.to>
<:output>#mail.body#</:output>
</:mail></:if>–
Adam
the decision was between no namespace at all and this one or something like
“l:”
We (the LAS Members) decided to have a namespace but the shortest one
possible.
it looks maybe odd to you, because it is new what makes it also special.
MichaOn Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Adam Cameron <@Adam_Cameron> wrote:
G’day:
Is using an empty “namespace” for .lucee tags really… a good thing? What
was the thinking there (that is not a passive aggressive way of saying “I
don’t think there was any”, it was a legit unloaded question).
It looks a bit odd, and despite empty namespaces being legit, it doesn’t
sit well with me for some reason.
EG:
<:script>
mail=evaluate(url.mail);</:script><:if hasMail>
<:mail subject=mail.subject from=mail.from to=mail.to>
<:output>#mail.body#</:output>
</:mail></:if>
–
Adam
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/34d81cb5-a2da-4cb3-9c1e-e72c8d1f4ef1%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/34d81cb5-a2da-4cb3-9c1e-e72c8d1f4ef1%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[snip]
Yeah, thanks for all that.
I am just unaware of a precedent of vendors with their own tagsets opting
to use an empty namespace. I my own hack-about code? Sure. But as an
“official” usage? Nope.
My point
Hence the question.
So to try to get a clear answer, the answer is “we decided to use the
‘namespace’ sort of syntax (namespace:tagname) instead of a ‘prefix’
(like CFML does ), but we opted to have an empty namespace
instead of a ‘vendor-specific’ one to save some typing”. That’s pretty much
it, yes?
Okey doke.On Thursday, 16 April 2015 12:44:46 UTC+1, Micha wrote:
–
Adam