RE: [PEAR-DEV] Package(s) proposal(s): HTML_Image and HTML_Link.

> From: Leandro Lucarella [mailto:luca@llucax.hn.org] On Behalf Of Leandro > Lucarella > Bertrand Mansion, el lunes 4 de agosto a las 00:25 me escribiste: > > <luca@lucarella.com.ar> wrote : > > > 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. > > Ok, forget about the packages/classes/whatever. I just did it because I > use them. I thought they might be usefull for other people too, so I > proposed them here. It's taking me more time this discussion than it > take to code them. I'm not in a crussade to put them in PEAR. > The classes are there, if you like it, use it. Well we appreciate the proposal and sometimes even useful classes don't fit into PEAR. As always you can still put together a package.xml and provide these classes via the installer. Regards, Lukas