At 3:25 PM -0500 1/31/01, Chris Nandor wrote:
>At 21:17 +0100 01.31.2001, Terje Bless wrote:
>>On 31.01.01 at 14:16, Scott R. Godin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>hmm.. Guess I need to study the CGI.pm docs a little more carefully. Could
>>>have sworn that disabled took a true/false attribute instead of just BEING
>>>a boolean itself (which WOULD make more practical sense)
>>
>>It does. It's a matter of attribute shorting and IE being "clever".
>
>In the HTML 4.0 spec, I could find no evidence of "disbled" taking a value.
>
Wait. I think Chris is talking about HTML, and Scott is talking about
how CGI.pm *writes* HTML. In CGI.pm's HTML-writing methods,
attributes are handled as name=>value pairs, so boolean variables as
allowed in HTML don't work directly. I don't recall using it, but
it's plausible to me that the boolean attribute 'disabled' would be
coded in CGI.pm's methods as disabled=>'false' or disabled=>'true'.
Hmm?
1;
--
- Bruce
__bruce_van_allen__santa_cruz_ca__
