- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:07:56 -0500
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Andy Lyttle <whatwg at phroggy.com> wrote: > <table> >>> <tr> >>> <input type="hidden" ...> >>> <td></td> >>> </tr> >>> </table> >>> >> > This is something I wanted to do recently. I was building HTML in a Perl > script, adding table rows in a loop, and I wanted some rows to contain text > field with user-editable value, while for other rows I wanted the value to > be displayed but not editable (and I didn't want to use a disabled text > input, I wanted the value displayed as plain text and use a hidden input > with the value preset). I believe I wound up putting the <input> inside the > <td>, which worked well enough but if putting it directly inside the <tr> > were valid I probably would have done that. That seems sort of weird though. You're fine with putting the <input type="text"> within the <td>, but you'd prefer *not* to do the same with the <input type="hidden">? It seems much more reasonable to just put it in the exact same place. At any rate, it certainly doesn't seem like a compelling reason to change the content model of <tr>. ~TJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081016/1d39806d/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 15:07:56 UTC