Martin DeMello wrote:
> Could someone familiar with both post a comparison of Kwartz and
> Amrita?


* Amrita and Kwartz doesn't break HTML design at all.
* Kwartz can separate presentation logic from main program
  as well as from HTML file.
  In amrita, presentaion logic must be in main program.
* Kwartz let you to describe complex presentation logic
  more naturally than amrita.
* Kwartz supports auto-sanitizing.
* ..and more.


For example, amrita is not good at to handle <dl><dt><dd> list.
Kwartz can generate it very naturally without using dummy tags,
because it can iterate only content of element.
The following is an example of Kwartz to generate <dl> list.

example.html
  --------------------
  <ul id="list">
    <dt id="value:word">..word..</dt>
    <dd id="value:desc">...description...</dd>
  </ul>
  --------------------

example.plogic
  --------------------
  #list {
    plogic: {
      @stag;    // start tag
      foreach (item in item_list) {   // iterate only content
        word = item['word'];
        desc = item['desc'];
        @cont;  // content
      }
      @etag;    // end tag
    }
  }
  --------------------

compilation:
  --------------------
  $ kwartz -p example.plogic example.html > example.rhtml
  --------------------

example.rhtml
  --------------------
  <ul id="list">
  <% for item in item_list do %>
  <%   word = item["word"] %>
  <%   desc = item["desc"] %>
    <dt><%= word %></dt>
    <dd><%= desc %></dd>
  <% end %>
  </ul>
  --------------------


If you have to use complex presentation logic, you will like Kwartz.

See:
Kwartz Users' Guide:
  http://www.kuwata-lab.com/kwartz/users-guide.en.html
Presentation Pattern Catalog:
  http://www.kuwata-lab.com/kwartz/p-pattern.en.html

--
regards,
kwatch