Re: Package(s) proposal(s): HTML_Image and HTML_Link.

<luca@lucarella.com.ar> wrote : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Stephan Schmidt, el domingo 3 de agosto a las 20:40 me escribiste: >>> Well. An Anchor is not a link, I think anchor should be a >>> different class or I'll change the name of the class to >>> HTML_Anchor, but I don't like that since an anchor and a link >>> are two different things (it has no sense on adding GET >>> variables to an anchor, AFAIK). >> Having two classes for this is overkill. > > Ok, let's put all in HTML_Common then. They are two different things (I > don't know why it uses the same (X)HTML tag). > > And I don't understand why it's overkill to have 2 small classes... Good idea, I am also going to add <br>, <hr> and <blink>... Seriously, HTML_Common purpose is not to add html tags to html documents, but to handle html attributes and html outputs. It's used by other classes and needs to be as fast as possible for these tasks. Please look at the code. If you really want to add img and link, they'll have to be extra packages. But I doubt the usefulness of such packages on a wider scale. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam