Re: Re: sloppiness & stupidity

On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 18:59 -0400, tedd wrote: > At 10:51 PM +0100 6/17/09, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > >On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Nisse Engström wrote: > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:18:09 +0100, "Ford, Mike" wrote: > >> > >> > This is very true -- but XHTML requires *all* attributes to have a > >> > value, so an XHTML conformant page will use <select > >> > multiple="multiple" > >> > name="selector"> (or something similar such as <select > >> > multiple="yes" > >> > name="selector">). The only inconsistency here is that different > >> > people > >> > have chosen to validate against different standards. > >> > >> The multiple attribute only has one value: "multiple", so > >> it has to be <select multiple="multiple">. I don't think > >> "yes" cuts the mustard. In HTML, you can shorten it to > >> <select multiple>. > >> > >> > >> /Nisse > >> > >I read somewhere that the XHTML standards say that for all attributes > >that would normally be standalone in HTML, they should be given a value > >that is the same as the attribute name, so you would use > >multiple="multiple", selected="selected", checked="checked", > >etc. As far > >as I know, using this in regular HTML won't cause it to choke either, as > >the parsers tend to only look at the existence of the attributes, not > >the values they may or may not have. > > > >Thanks > >Ash > > > Ash: > > As I understand it and is my experience, that is > true -- a stand-alone HTML attribute should be > equal to itself, such as selected="selected", or > more specifically selected="SELECTED". However, > it will still work but will throw a validation > error/warning in some DOCTYPEs, such as XHTLM. I > don't know of any other DOCTYPE that might throw > such as error. > > Cheers, > > tedd > > -- > ------- > http://sperling.com > http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.comIöÿ > MÇü—<¥­¹¦%¬ > I was under the impression that in XHTML *all* attributes had to have values, even if just empty strings? Thanks Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk