> No, but....
>
> I am generating XML to send to my server. I was replacing what was
> basically
>
> var xmlString = "<foo state="' + document.all.ProtectLocal.checked +
> '"/>';
>
> with
>
> var xmlString = "<foo state="' + $('#ProtectLocal').attr("checked") +
> '"/>';
>
> Because I like the jQuery way of specifying items. And the above
> makes more sense then what is actually needed:
>
> var xmlString = "<foo state="' + $('#ProtectLocal').attr("checked") ?
> true : false + '"/>';
>
> jQuery makes my code so much more readable and allows me to remove a
> lot of existing JavaScript, this would be the first time it resulted
> in more JavaScript to do the same thing.
>
> -= chuck
>
I hear what you're saying. jQuery is simply returning the results of
element.getAttribute('checked') and if the attr does not exist then
its value is undefined. Not sure whether that's a bug or not though.
A slightly more compact syntax would be:
var xmlString =
'<foo state="' + ($('#ProtectLocal').attr("checked")||false) + '"/>';
