Re: [PHP] Re: sloppiness & stupidity

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".

How is that MORE specific? XHTML is like a cross-section of XML and 
HTML. It is case sensitive, so using an uppercase value in this context 
is LESS specific.

Cheers,
Rob.
-- 
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP