comment on

Trying... to... resist... jumping into... the fray. (Too late).

I would definitely not use the CGI methods of generating HTML for the entire page/site, for the reasons tilly and others give. But I do think that there is one place where CGI.pm's HTML generation functions shine: any kind of input form.

My rationale? CGI.pm form fields are "sticky". This means that if you have to print out the form a second time (e.g. to have a user correct some invalid input), it is reincarnated with all the input from the first pass. Automatically. So you don't have to regenerate the form worrying about substituting any default form values with the valid input from the first submission, CGI.pm takes care of that. And it's easy to delete any form params that happen to be invalid for your program.

This is just my opinion, and others will surely disagree, but I find the HTML generation method invaluable for this reason.

..Guv

In reply to Re: Re: CGI.pm for HTML output? by theguvnor
in thread CGI.pm for HTML output? by jrsmith

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


laziness, impatience, and hubris
	PerlMonks