Actually, I used them a few times. I agree the model used for html generation is inadequate for most any serious usage. However, if you need to dynamicaly generate forms CGI.pm is unmatched. A modernized equavalent for them would still be very usefull IMHO. Though I agree it might be better put in it's own module.
On the other HTML outputting functions: They never really belonged in CGI in the first place I guess. There is no reason they cannot be generalized to XML outputting and be put in an appropriate library. In my experience, it is a very decent method of outputting XML content, specially when your program has a procedural or functional design. gr. Leon On 9/13/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:18:19PM +0300, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > My 0.02 ???: CGI.pm will be better off redesigned and cleaned up, and > for those wanting compatibility a module called CGI5.pm can be > written. > > It will probably be very popular, like p5 regexes ... Hear hear! I wonder how many people really use the HTML-generating bits of CGI.pm? I know I never have, nor have they been used that I can remember anywhere that I've worked, or in any of the non-work projects I've collaborated in. It's always been 'print "<HTML>"' or more recently using a templating language like TT. -- David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club" Computer Science is about lofty design goals and careful algorithmic optimisation. Sysadminning is about cleaning up the resulting mess.
