On Jan 8, 2008 12:52 PM, pangel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually no if this is to be trusted > http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#h-17.12.1 > (ie. the valid html form of a disabled input would be <input > disabled>)
Actually yes - if you know how to read the spec. Then you would know the difference between normative and informative sections: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html#didx-boolean_attribute * * > Anyway I got my answer on another thread - It makes sense to avoid > dealing with all the quirks of html4. What quirks? XHTML1.0 is just an application of HTML4 in XML. When served as text/html, as we all seem to do, the document is parsed exactly the same as HTML4, and that is tag soup. Haml can generate perfectly valid HTML4 because it already generates it that way. You just need to get rid of trailing slashes on empty elements, and that would be but a simple monkeypatch. I think I'll try to do an evil twin plugin for Haml sometime soon. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
