On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 07:19:40AM +0900, Andreas Schwarz wrote:
> > At that point, it seems smarter to shift your focus from "HTML templates to 
> > put my Ruby in" to "Ruby class that puts out HTML".
> 
> The problem is that the methods generating html could end up containing
> more and more of the functional core of the application, so that they
> aren't easily exchangeable. But I will think about it again...
> 

I agree with Andreas here. Templates are templates, there should be no logic
in them; they are only presentation. You shouldn't ask your template writers
to learn your programming language just to change how your software looks. If
your templates become your code, there is no point in having the templates,
just go ahead and embed HTML.

While it is a given that your templates will grow complex, they do not
necessarily have to have code in them. I think a system like Amrita
demonstrates that well.

-- 
Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three
  steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth.
Lo. Lee. Ta.               GUO Shu-yu <shu / rufuran.org>