Why <tag> and not {tag} ?

[acroix]

This may be a stupid question but why does pixelpost uses &lt;tag>'s instead, for instance, {tag}'s ?

My HTML editor is constantly getting confused whether the &lt;tag> is a valid or not, while {tag}'s are simply handled as text.

I bet I am missing something, but still, I like to understand this.

Andre

PS: Did I mention how much I am looking forward gettiing my fingers on 1.4.2 :)

[Joe[y]]

once a &lt;tag> has been passed through a server it will appear as valid HTML so unless you are using tags such as &lt;SITE_CALENDAR> and have your calendar switched off then the use of &lt;TAG> should not affect HTML validation one bit. So in conclusion, there is no reason why it shouldn't be {tag} other than, it makes no difference whatsoever! :lol:

[Connie]

@Joe[y], these confusions arise when editing the templates...

@André, as we live in a free country, a developer is free to decide the characters for his work

somebody likes Pastrami (Henry Miller), somebody likes Madeleine-Cookies like Marcel Proust...

so I think the editor has a problem. Is there no way to configure the editor?
Many editors have syntax-checking and you can add tags he has to accept

which editor are you using?
It's good for us to know who is confused by us :wink:

[acroix]

[quote="Connie"]@André, as we live in a free country, a developer is free to decide the characters for his work

What kind of an answer is this? I was asking a technical question about the use of &lt;tags> and the problem I experienced. But, if this offended you; sorry for asking.

Andre

[Connie]

you didn't get my irony, unfortunately! :cry:

but to answer technically:

the style of template-tags is nowhere defined, it is the developer's choice and if the editor stumbles across these varities of tags, there should be a way to customize the editor...

you know, there is no statistic, which tag is the "real one"...

and I use editors where I can customize syntax checking etc.

these small decisions are an expression of freedom of mind and/or chouce :wink:

[acroix]

Moin moin, Connie, I guess I am not an expert in German humor :)

Anyway, thanks for your explanation. So I do understand that the developer could even use :tag: if he want to. Cool.

I guess I will give BBEdit a try as Taco Edit has some problems with the &lt;tag>'s.

Guten Abend,

Andre

[Connie]

hummel hummel, Andre!

yes, that's exactly what I wanted to point out..

tell us, if the other editor works better, as I think of a posting in the forum with software recommendations, which tool to edit. which tool to work with graphic files etc....

have a nice day!

[Joe[y]]

personally, I'd always use the validator at W3 as this is obviously the most current validator. Others try to make changes to suit their own needs sometimes.

[acroix]

Joe,

yes, you are right, that is definately the best way to validate the code. I think BBEdit (Mac) is using the W3 validator, but I will need to verify this.

Thanks,

Andre

[acroix]

Connie,

I am using:

Nikon D2H + Nikkor 85mm/f1.4 + Nikkor 50mm/f1.4 for photo capture,
Apple Powerbook + Apple Cinema HD for computation,
Nikon Capture + Photoshop CS for photo editing,
webedition's MAMP for development and testing,
Taco HTML Edit (soon to be replaced by BBEdit) for coding,
Firefox, Safari and Internet Explorer for visual verification,
and Diet Pepsi for refreshement :)

Bye y'all,

Andre

PS: I guess you need to move this post to the appropriate forum, sorry.

[blinking8s]

you have all that but no Dreamweaver?

[acroix]

Yeah, I know ... ran out of money. :?

[Connie]

Blinking8s,

you can edit websites without Dreamweaver, just typing into editor, but you cannot shoot photos without cameras, that would be painting ;=)

that's why I also prefere to spend my money on camera gear and not on software (I am working in a software company ;)(

:wink:

[raminia]

I'm using textpad as editor for html and php coding.:)

[blinking8s]

I edited sites without dreamweaver for 2 years, I'm a notepad kinda guy...I know that very well connie, but it sure makes life a heck of a lot easier later down the road when projects just get bigger and bigger.

[blinking8s]

I edited sites without dreamweaver for 2 years, I'm a notepad kinda guy...I know that very well connie, but it sure makes life a heck of a lot easier later down the road when projects just get bigger and bigger. DW rendered view is about useless, always has been...next version the xhtml is supposed to render better but i doubt it will...either way, its a very powerful text editor

[Joe[y]]

i use dreamweaver - couldn't do without it.