Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
61 lines (41 loc) · 1.75 KB

BringBackDummy.rst

File metadata and controls

61 lines (41 loc) · 1.75 KB
Raw

Bring Back Dummy

html

I think that:

<tr tal:dummy="">.....</tr>

is more obvious than:

<tr tal:replace="nothing">.....</tr>

That is, I think a dedicated tag would make dummy or example (I'd be happy with tal:example.) elements easier to spot.

Comments

peterbe (Jun 12, 2001 6:24 am; Comment #1) -- I'm just a user, but my instinctive feel is that

'dummy' or 'example' should not be implemented:

<tr tal:replace="nothing">.....</tr>

does feel very natural.

n.larosa (Jun 13, 2001 4:29 am; Comment #2) -- Well, this overlaps with the CommentDirective proposal. Is

tal:comment more pleasant than tal:dummy ? I hope so.

peterbe (Jul 16, 2001 3:53 am; Comment #3) -- -1

go tal:comment !

mindlace (Jul 18, 2001 2:04 pm; Comment #4) -- -1 but how about tal:replace="structure nothing"?

n.larosa (Jul 30, 2001 8:43 am; Comment #6) -- I guess I now understand the difference between the CommentDirective

and BringBackDummy.

A tal:comment attribute would be erased by itself, leaving the tag in place, while a tal:dummy attribute would make the whole tag disappear.

Is this correct? If so, I see the need for something dummy-like. tal:replace="nothing" is too verbose, and does not clearly express the fact that this is a comment. I would use the tal:comment in place of the tal:dummy one, though.

On the other hand, the standard HTML comment syntax leaks to the generated HTML pages, something to be avoided. And there's no such option in XML, generally speaking.

A <span tal:comment="SQL data here"> tag would not impact the designer's layout, while <`span tal:comment="">Jim, please no italics. Thanks.</span> would be visible.