Or not.
Lincoln
Ronald J Kimball writes:
> 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
--
========================================================================
Lincoln D. Stein Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cold Spring Harbor, NY
NOW HIRING BIOINFORMATICS POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWS AND PROGRAMMERS.
PLEASE WRITE FOR DETAILS.
========================================================================
