Oleg V Alexeev wrote: >AB> Making it one with the current library?... >AB> It "can", but so can the html library. But for many reasons I go against >AB> it. One, the simple fact that they're all working off the same basic >AB> premise, the same relationships that the html tags work off of. So if >AB> it's done for one, it's done for all. If you do for all, it's another >AB> property which has to be added to each tag, and is entirely a lot more >AB> work with what I definitely feel is a less elegant solution in the end. > >AB> The clean and efficient markup needed for the nested tags is just... >AB> well... sexy! >AB> :) > >Good. So, can you create mirror of existing tags with "nested" features >with intention to merge "base" and "nested" tags together? If yes, >then we don't need to support two different brunches of tags with >similar code. > They don't have similar code at all. The nested tags rely on the old tags to do exactly what they do best. They just link them together so that they have a parents and children etc. The difference between say, the code in the nested:equals tag is almost identical to that in the nested:text tag. It's just that they extend different classes to do what they do.
I'd recommend taking 10 minutes to take a look at the source for the nested tags to see just how separate they are. Arron. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
