Thanks for that! Always thought it was invalid to do otherwise, so I had to do weird things in order to get a single 'disabled' - which is why I asked about html generation in the first time. Should learn how to read the spec indeed.
On Jan 8, 2:24 pm, "Mislav Marohnić" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
