Re: [Chicken-users] More thoughts on Ersatz

[Peter Bex]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:15:14PM +0000, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>  > Not to sound like a broken record, but I'd add that this applies 100%
>  > to HTML/XML as well.  I would suggest using SXML or something similar
>  > over a string-based templating language.  This allows you to prevent
>  > injection bugs as well as accidental mismatching of opening/closing
>  > tags.
> 
>       Yet another idea is to prepare an XML document (using either
>       notation) holding the “mostly static” part of the result, and
>       also an XML document holding all the “repeated” (or “optional”)
>       subtrees.  Both the “insertion points” in the former, and such
>       subtrees, are then marked, one way or another (e. g., I opted to
>       use the HTML ‘class’ attribute), and the code simply composes
>       the result by attaching such pieces to each other.

Is this code available somewhere?  It sounds like a good alternative to
SXML, but somewhat friendlier to designers (who aren't likely to be
using emacs with paredit :P).

>       There's a minor convenience in the use of the “XML” notation for
>       the templates, too: such templates may be constructed in a way
>       that allows for them to be viewed with the target application
>       itself (such as a Web browser, should XHTML be considered.)

The disadvantage of that notation is of course the opportunity for
generating ill-formed XML, unless you run some kind of parsing step
over it and raise an error as soon as you encounter bad nesting/syntax.

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://www.more-magic.net