@@ -96,18 +96,18 @@ is ambiguous.
9696One Template Engine
9797-------------------
9898
99- Flask decides on one template engine: Jinja2 . Why doesn't Flask have a
99+ Flask decides on one template engine: Jinja . Why doesn't Flask have a
100100pluggable template engine interface? You can obviously use a different
101- template engine, but Flask will still configure Jinja2 for you. While
102- that limitation that Jinja2 is *always * configured will probably go away,
101+ template engine, but Flask will still configure Jinja for you. While
102+ that limitation that Jinja is *always * configured will probably go away,
103103the decision to bundle one template engine and use that will not.
104104
105105Template engines are like programming languages and each of those engines
106106has a certain understanding about how things work. On the surface they
107107all work the same: you tell the engine to evaluate a template with a set
108108of variables and take the return value as string.
109109
110- But that's about where similarities end. Jinja2 for example has an
110+ But that's about where similarities end. Jinja for example has an
111111extensive filter system, a certain way to do template inheritance,
112112support for reusable blocks (macros) that can be used from inside
113113templates and also from Python code, supports iterative template
@@ -118,8 +118,8 @@ other hand treats templates similar to Python modules.
118118
119119When it comes to connecting a template engine with an application or
120120framework there is more than just rendering templates. For instance,
121- Flask uses Jinja2 's extensive autoescaping support. Also it provides
122- ways to access macros from Jinja2 templates.
121+ Flask uses Jinja 's extensive autoescaping support. Also it provides
122+ ways to access macros from Jinja templates.
123123
124124A template abstraction layer that would not take the unique features of
125125the template engines away is a science on its own and a too large
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ authentication technologies, and more. Flask may be "micro", but it's ready for
150150production use on a variety of needs.
151151
152152Why does Flask call itself a microframework and yet it depends on two
153- libraries (namely Werkzeug and Jinja2 ). Why shouldn't it? If we look
153+ libraries (namely Werkzeug and Jinja ). Why shouldn't it? If we look
154154over to the Ruby side of web development there we have a protocol very
155155similar to WSGI. Just that it's called Rack there, but besides that it
156156looks very much like a WSGI rendition for Ruby. But nearly all
@@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ What Flask is, What Flask is Not
208208
209209Flask will never have a database layer. It will not have a form library
210210or anything else in that direction. Flask itself just bridges to Werkzeug
211- to implement a proper WSGI application and to Jinja2 to handle templating.
211+ to implement a proper WSGI application and to Jinja to handle templating.
212212It also binds to a few common standard library packages such as logging.
213213Everything else is up for extensions.
214214
0 commit comments