Patch applied. Thanks a bunch!
- Nathan
Jan Szumiec wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
