Maciek asked me to post this:
-----
I found that haml currently doesn't distinguish between nil and empty
("") attributes which seems to me a little bit weird.
There are some cases when an empty attribute is interpreted other way
than a tag without an attribute.
For example:
<option>Text</option> <!-- browser assumes
value="Text" -->
<option value="">Text</option> <!-- browser assigns empty string to
value -->
Option tag without a value attribute is interpreted as the content of
the tag was the value itself, so when you want to have empty value you
must specify it explicitly.
I think that correct behavior should be that nil attributes aren't
rendered but empty strings are, so a programmer could choose between
two possible scenarios.
I did a quick patch attached to the mail as an example solution to
this problem - see http://pastie.caboo.se/81384 .
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
