on 01/31/2001 04:04 PM, Bruce Van Allen at [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?
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.)
I cc'd him.
--
Scott R. Godin | e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Laughing Dragon Services | web : http://www.webdragon.net/
