Merged
Conversation
Member
|
Thanks. Please provide a test. |
3db7acd to
bc6da1e
Compare
Author
|
Done. It seems like for XHTML the corresponding attribute would have to be exactly |
Member
|
I think your idea of converting these back and forth in |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Disabled input elements are not in included in the emerging request in general according to 1 and 2 which doesn't seems to be recognized by lxml yet.
These changes do not really implements the standard perfectly which includes also rules for which the disabled attribute would be invalid, but it's actually the way most browsers are handling it by disabling an input just when the disabled attribute is set at all independently of the actual value.