I am not against a cleaner approach if you can think of one. I
just don't see why having a ComponentTagRemover is any dirtier than
having a ComponentTagAttributeModifier. It's definately more ideal than
having to parse the HTML yourself.Gili On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:56:26 +0100, Eelco Hillenius wrote: >Hmmm... sounds dirty AND contrairy to the docs you wrote. On the other >hand, I wouldn't mind having this. Kind of +/- 0. > >Eelco > > >Jonathan Locke wrote: > >> >> could we make a generic ComponentTagAttributeRemover thing somehow >> that would either render or not render the tag it's attached to but >> still render its body? >> >> Jonathan Locke wrote: > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues >Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. >It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt >_______________________________________________ >Wicket-develop mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop > ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
