|
List Info
Thread: Sass & Rails 2.0
|
|
| Sass & Rails 2.0 |
  United States |
2007-10-23 12:33:04 |
With all the new naming conventions for files in Rails 2.0,
can we
expect Sass to follow suit?
application.css.sass
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to haml googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haml-unsubscribe googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://grou
ps.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
| Re: Sass & Rails 2.0 |

|
2007-10-23 13:29:55 |
Sass isn't a regular rendering engine. So, it wouldn't
really make
sense to do that. Its not like Sass can render multiple
types of data.
Also, they aren't views in any way.
-hampton.
On 10/23/07, pimpmaster <stevendgarcia gmail.com> wrote:
>
> With all the new naming conventions for files in Rails
2.0, can we
> expect Sass to follow suit?
>
> application.css.sass
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to haml googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haml-unsubscribe googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://grou
ps.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
| Re: Sass & Rails 2.0 |

|
2007-10-23 13:41:04 |
On 10/23/07, pimpmaster <stevendgarcia gmail.com> wrote:
>
> With all the new naming conventions for files in Rails
2.0, can we
> expect Sass to follow suit?
>
> application.css.sass
That would seem to be proper based on the Rails naming
conventions,
but I frankly, I don't really approve in this case mainly
because I
don't see Sass as purely a means to generate CSS. A browser
could
theoretically be made to read Sass as a stylesheet. Sass
could be used
to generate XSL or some other format. While, by design, it
is
extremely similar to CSS, it is plausible as a file format
in it's own
right.
This is the main reason I find Haml and Sass to be so
appealing, they
feel like files rather than code stuffed into files.
-------------------------------------------
Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
Devi Web Development
Devi.WebMaster gMail.com
-------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to haml googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haml-unsubscribe googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://grou
ps.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
| Re: Sass & Rails 2.0 |

|
2007-10-23 14:00:47 |
|
I also find this kind of ridiculous:
index.html.haml
".html" extension is redundant because Haml can only generate HTML ... besides, Rails 2.0 works perfectly fine with templates named just ".haml".
On 10/23/07, Hampton < hcatlin gmail.com">hcatlin gmail.com> wrote:
Sass isn't a regular rendering engine. So, it wouldn';t really make sense to do that. Its not like Sass can render multiple types of data. Also, they aren't views in any way.
-hampton.
On 10/23/07, pimpmaster <
stevendgarcia gmail.com">stevendgarcia gmail.com> wrote: > > With all the new naming conventions for files in Rails 2.0, can we > expect Sass to follow suit? > > application.css.sass
> > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to haml googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to haml-unsubscribe googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
| Re: Sass & Rails 2.0 |

|
2007-10-23 14:10:14 |
Eh, in theory, you could definitely do index.xml.haml
I know lots of people using haml to generate xml.
On 10/23/07, Mislav Marohniæ <mislav.marohnic gmail.com> wrote:
> I also find this kind of ridiculous:
>
> index.html.haml
>
> ".html" extension is redundant because Haml
can only generate HTML ...
> besides, Rails 2.0 works perfectly fine with templates
named just ".haml".
>
>
> On 10/23/07, Hampton <hcatlin gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sass isn't a regular rendering engine. So, it
wouldn't really make
> > sense to do that. Its not like Sass can render
multiple types of data.
> > Also, they aren't views in any way.
> >
> > -hampton.
> >
> > On 10/23/07, pimpmaster < stevendgarcia gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > With all the new naming conventions for files
in Rails 2.0, can we
> > > expect Sass to follow suit?
> > >
> > > application.css.sass
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to haml googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haml-unsubscribe googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://grou
ps.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
| Re: Sass & Rails 2.0 |
  United States |
2007-10-23 15:19:30 |
I see your point Hampton.Its not like people will be using
Sass for
anything but stylesheets.
Thanks for the prompt reply, as I am building a bunch of
generators
for my happy little SASS framework (based on blueprint)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to haml googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haml-unsubscribe googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://grou
ps.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
[1-6]
|
|