|This page was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was Delete.|
Having been deleted in an AfD, this article was undeleted as per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 3
Haml is a alternative more legible non-XHTML syntax. It is "reversible" in the sense of XSugar?
It is a very interesting language, the Haml's scripts seem more like a "programmable RELAX Compact_syntax" than a tradictional Web template (see formal defs.). What the relationship with Haml and schema specifications (that is not a explicit "core principle")?
-- Krauss 9 December 2006
- Haml was designed as a web templating engine and does fit with the rules of one; although HTML isn't valid input like it is for PHP and eRuby, it does fit with all the necessities in the formal definition. Haml isn't really a schema language like RELAX NG or XML Schemas... rather than defining types of XML documents, it defines the documents themselves. Is that what you were asking? -- Nex3, Haml developer December 16, 2006
- It was a confuse question about the "inspiration" of Haml, perhaps looking for a "aproximation" between template language and schema ...
- After analyzing Halm a little more, it looks very related with CSS (more than with a schema!). It is a very positive feature of the language. A more simple and better question:
"It is, for the developers, a web template system that integrate Style sheet language with the Markup language in the document production process?". --Krauss (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
<div id='content'> <div class='entry'> <h3 class='title'>Halloween</h3> <p class='date'>Tuesday, October 31, 2006</p> <p class='body'> Happy Halloween, glorious readers! I'm going to a party this evening... I'm very excited. </p> </div> <div class='entry'> <h3 class='title'>New Rails Templating Engine</h3> <p class='date'>Friday, August 11, 2006</p> <p class='body'> There's a very cool new Templating Engine out for Ruby on Rails. It's called Haml. </p> </div> </div>
I removed the "criticisms and disadvantages" section. Many of the things listed weren't 100% clear disadvantages or commonly accepted fact and they were all unsourced. Much of it appeared to be the opinion of a single editor, so it didn't seem appropriate to keep.