Re: [REMINDER] Package Proposal: HTML_Sax

From:	Harry Fuecks	Date:	Tue, 13 May 2003 09:57:12 +0000
Subject:	Re: [REMINDER] Package Proposal: HTML_Sax
References:	1 2 3 4 5	Groups:	php.pear.dev
Request:	Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-16204@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message

Apologies for delay. Became a father for the first time yesterday but I'll avoid going way off topic. HTML_Parser_Sax sounds good to me. I've lost count of the number of +1's - think it's 4 now. Should I go for it? On Tue, 13 May 2003 02:04:47 +0100, Davey <davey@php.net> wrote:

Agreed, HTML_Sax_Parser or HTML_Parser_Sax? (the latter whilst not being so nice is better for allowing other parsers in.... - Davey Alan Knowles wrote:
On a theoritical basis XML_HTMLSax is ok, but the end users/vistor to the website is going to say mmh, "I need an html parser" - where are they going to look 90% of the time?
+1 for XML_HTMLSax... I think it fits better in the XML category, as most of the stuff in the HTML category is more for displaying various HTML elements, not parsing them... also, SAX is normally associated with XML.
+1. And I agree with XML_HTMLSax and the XML category