[Web-SIG] Standardized template API

Christian Wyglendowski christian at dowski.com
Wed Feb 1 17:02:13 CET 2006

Kevin Dangoor wrote:
> On 1/31/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
>> Unlike Jim, I'm also actively *against* having such a spec because it
>> creates the illusion that a useful problem has been solved.  I don't have
>> anything against the Turbo/Buffet API, mind you, I just don't want it
>> anywhere near a PEP.  It's a niche solution to a niche problem, which is
>> allowing web frameworks to offer an illusion of choice to developers.
> There may need to be two discussions here. There are some minor tweaks
> to the current TurboGears template plugin spec that people want. I
> don't know how many people are using those plugins, but I do know that
> there are at least three. I'm fine with taking a first step of making
> our changes to the simple variable-to-string interface and having that
> be a de facto standard among those of us using these plugins.

I am fine with that.  While the current vars-to-strings template plugins 
might not solve any "interesting" problems, they can (and do) make life 
easier for folks writing web apps in frameworks that use them.

> If we can devise a standard that builds on WSGI in some useful way and
> allows for more uses and wider adoption, as Phillip suggests, that
> does seem like a fine goal for the web-sig. That effort is not going
> to stop or hinder those of us who are already using these template
> engine plugins happily, so I don't think we need to look at this as an
> either-or proposition. The PEP would only cover the larger standard,
> but we can still make good use of the tools we have today.



ps - my first post to the WEB-SIG :-)

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list