Re: HTML.pm future
Gisle Aas (aas@sn.no)
Fri, 01 Dec 1995 17:09:30 +0100
I was too busy to answer any of this last week.
In <v02120d01acdd0eb764e9@[204.156.156.16]> M. Hedlund wrote:
> >With Marc's newly-released CGI::[Response], the time has come to clean up
> >the CGI:: modules and make them more convenient to use. I'd like to
> >move the sticky form stuff to HTML::Form, as you recommend. However,
> >I'm uncertain whether to base it on Greg's HTML.pm or the HTML modules
> >that come with the LWP package. Can anyone here comment on the
> >relative merits of each?
>
> I was wondering about this too. Maybe Gisle is the best person to answer
> this -- Gisle, why did you decide to start work on new modules? Was Greg's
> insufficient for your purposes?
I was in need for a HTML parser. Greg's module did not look like a good
stating point to me at that time. I started up with a very simple
HTML::Element class that the parser routine would build a syntax tree with.
As time passed this class got a more complicated and more and more of the
parser routines ended up as methods in the HTML::Element class. Today it has
several things in common with the HTML::Base class.
My primary purpose was not to generate HTML code, but with the HTML::AsSubs
hack that was added this became possible too. I am not really that happy with
the output generated by the asHTML() method, but it is close to being useful.
I think I would have to study HTML::Base closer before I comment any more on
this.
--
Gisle Aas <aas@oslonett.no>
Schibsted Nett AS http://www.oslonett.no/home/aas/