[Web-SIG] A trivial template API counter-proposal

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Sun Feb 5 23:31:55 CET 2006

At 02:36 PM 2/5/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>I think very minor fixes could improve it -- for instance, allow 
>template_filename as an argument instead of only template_name.  Then at 
>least simple template filling would be handled well (e.g., enough for 
>Paste Script), though it is unlikely (with only those specs) that 
>templates will handle including other templates very well, as there's not 
>even sufficient information given for the template language to figure out 
>the programmer's intent.

But this is precisely why I think a spec to the level you're describing is 
premature.  You're basically saying that the template deployment situation 
is all fouled up, so we need to allow for more balkanization.  My original 
statement on this topic was that what we need to do is get a standard for 
template/resource *deployment* so that there's a path for cleaning up the 

Sure, no framework that exists is going to currently match exactly whatever 
spec we come up with for deployment, but I think we could come up with a 
layout that would support every framework's use cases and that everybody 
could agree it made sense to add support for.

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list