- From: Andy Lyttle <whatwg@phroggy.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:20:51 -0700
> 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>. Only because within the <td> I already had the value expressed as plain text. I ended up with something like <td><input type="hidden" value="Foo">Foo</td> (except it was uglier). I can't think of a specific example, but I know there's been something similar I wanted to do in the past that was similar that turned out uglier than this. I'm not saying it's a compelling reason, just that wanting to do it isn't completely insane. :-) -- Andy Lyttle whatwg at phroggy.com On Oct 16, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > 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
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 15:20:51 UTC