On Nov 10, 2003, at 11:49 AM, Dylan Reinhardt wrote:
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 07:36, Wilson, Derek wrote:
DTML is dead, long live ZPT!
Oh for heaven's sake.
DTML may be a crufty, aesthetically noxious historical artifact... but it's miles away from dead. In point of fact, it's not the least bit clear that that ZPT usage even *exceeds* DTML usage. And though you may not find us blowing our horns quite as loudly, there are more than a few here who *prefer* DTML's trade-offs to ZPT's.
DTML isn't dead, but some of us *wish* it was. And by proclaiming it dead, we hope to create anti-buzz around DTML, thus speeding the adoption of ZPT. It may be FUD, but it is FUD for benevolent ends! Let us save you from yourself! (What, you don't need saving? Pshaw...) If ZPT just had a non-attribute-language form, then we could really call DTML dead. I'm surprised no one's written that before now, it doesn't seem like it would be unreasonably difficult. PS, all the cool kids use ZPT -- Ian Bicking | ianb@colorstudy.com | http://blog.ianbicking.org