That seems sort of weird though. You're fine with putting the
<input type="text"> within the <td>, but you'd prefer *not* to do
the same with the <input type="hidden">? It seems much more
reasonable to just put it in the exact same place. At any rate, it
certainly doesn't seem like a compelling reason to change the
content model of <tr>.
Only because within the <td> I already had the value expressed as
plain text. I ended up with something like <td><input type="hidden"
value="Foo">Foo</td> (except it was uglier). I can't think of a
specific example, but I know there's been something similar I wanted
to do in the past that was similar that turned out uglier than this.
I'm not saying it's a compelling reason, just that wanting to do it
isn't completely insane. :-)
--
Andy Lyttle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 16, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Andy Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<table>
<tr>
<input type="hidden" ...>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>
This is something I wanted to do recently. I was building HTML in
a Perl script, adding table rows in a loop, and I wanted some rows
to contain text field with user-editable value, while for other
rows I wanted the value to be displayed but not editable (and I
didn't want to use a disabled text input, I wanted the value
displayed as plain text and use a hidden input with the value
preset). I believe I wound up putting the <input> inside the <td>,
which worked well enough but if putting it directly inside the <tr>
were valid I probably would have done that.
That seems sort of weird though. You're fine with putting the
<input type="text"> within the <td>, but you'd prefer *not* to do
the same with the <input type="hidden">? It seems much more
reasonable to just put it in the exact same place. At any rate, it
certainly doesn't seem like a compelling reason to change the
content model of <tr>.
~TJ
