Re: HTML_Object

David Grant <david@grant.org.uk> wrote: > Aidan Lister wrote: > > The problem with HTML_Object is: It's a useful package, but not big enough > > on it's own. > > What should we do? > > > > My suggestion: > > Have a set of HTML based objects perhaps bundled into a single package > > (HTML_Elements maybe). > > > > This package could hold the HTML_Object package, a HTML_List (for generating > > ordered/unordered lists - something I've got lying around) package, a > > package for generating XHTML elements, and any other useful nibblets. > > > > What do people think? > > I think a collection for HTML elements is a good idea. Each element > could come in the form of an individual driver, each of which extends a > basic HTML element with the core attributes (as defined by the > standards). Writing a seperate class for each (X)HTML element is not > desirable, even when it is as potentially huge as the Object element. I fully agree. In the past, HTML_Image was rejected for the reason that it would be absurd to have a package for each HTML element. However, a few complex elements that do not warrant an individual package would be combined, it might be very interesting. Especially for elements like object and applet. Klaus