Exacly my point. This shouldn't be seen as a replacement for a more robust solution like the one earlier in this thread or the existing Builder but more of a document.createElement-wrapper.
I'll submit a patch asap! Ciao martin On 2/6/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew: that two features bring us back to Dan's or mine implementations and > take out the lightweightness of Martin's elegant solution. > > Martin: by all means, submit a patch with tests on the already existing > ticket: > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/7476#comment:1 > > Doing so will enable easy reviewing and comparing. > > -m > > On 2/6/07, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Martin, I like your implementation a lot (especially the > > Element.writeAttributes idea, which I think should be added no matter > > what) but it's missing two things I like most about Dan Webb's > > DOMBuilder: > > > > * Tags as method names. Much easier to do x.DIV(foo, bar) than to do > > new Element("div", foo, bar). > > * Easy nesting (like "x.DIV( x.P ( x.SPAN() ) )"). DOMBuilder > > responds differently based on the number and types of arguments > > passed. > > > > > -- burnfield.com/martin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---