Go right ahead and send me a bug report.
Best,
Lincoln
Scott R. Godin writes:
> 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/
>
--
========================================================================
Lincoln D. Stein Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cold Spring Harbor, NY
NOW HIRING BIOINFORMATICS POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWS AND PROGRAMMERS.
PLEASE WRITE FOR DETAILS.
========================================================================
