On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:18:27PM -0500, Scott R. Godin wrote:
> on 01/31/2001 04:04 PM, Bruce Van Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> you know, this is sounding more and more like I should send a 'bug report'
> to Lincoln Stein about this..
>
> because technically if 'disabled = false' it should return NO value (i.e.
> the "disabled" bit should be missing from the resultant HTML.)
>
You seem to be under the impression that CGI understands HTML. It
doesn't. It just takes the attributes and values given, and turns them
into an HTML tag. CGI is not at fault if those attributes and values are
invalid.
If you want the 'disabled' attribute to not appear in the HTML, don't
include it in the call to the method.
Ronald
