[Rails] making rails even sexier

[Steve Longdo]

The designers that a lot of the rest of the world works with aren't
the same caliber as 37 signals by a long shot.  Dreamweaver expert
does not likely yield a decent ruby/rhtml coder...

I think some simple JSTL style tags wouldn't hurt anyone.  I imagine
the rails community would be excited to get transparent i18n support
from a <fmt> style tag rather than put code to look up some sort of
localized message bundle on every page.


On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:02:05 +0100, Florian Weber
<csshsh at structbench.com> wrote:
> 
> On Feb 12, 2005, at 15:16 Uhr, Juraci Krohling Costa wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> >
> > This is exactly what I "dislike" in Rails :-)
> 
> and for me that's exactly what i love about rails. =) view logic can
> get quite complicated,
> if i have to express it in some verbose or awkward language, it's hell.
> i ran into enough
> situations with xml based template languages, where i had to make all
> kind of weird
> workarounds just to express some complex view logic.
> 
> i would agree if ruby would be a very verbose and non-elegant language.
> but it's not.
> so i'm more than happy with it.
> 
> and like david said, it's the best if designers work with 'the real
> thing'. your xml based
> template might render in dreamweaver.. but how will it look there? will
> everything be
> displayed properly? nothing essential omitted? thats a whole different
> question..
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails at lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>