Forum: Ruby on Rails HTML question...

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Patrick D. (Guest)
on 2009-01-02 16:49
(Received via mailing list)
if you are offended by HTML questions on this list, please feel free to
flame me off list.

I would like to display a boolean value in my #index view as a checkbox
that
is checked when true and blank when not true.  Is there some markup that
can
do this?  Is it "legal" to embed an <input type="checkbox"> tag outside
the
context of a form?  Even if it's "legal", is it considered bad practice?

I've poked around a little looking to see what others have done, and I
could
embed a checkmark image in my page, or I could embed the proper Unicode
code
for a checkmark, and hope that the browser has a font installed with
that
character, but it seems to me that the browser must already know how to
display a checkmark, and in the principle of DRY, I should be able to
reuse
it :-)

--wpd
Frederick C. (Guest)
on 2009-01-02 17:01
(Received via mailing list)
On 2 Jan 2009, at 14:48, Patrick D. wrote:

> if you are offended by HTML questions on this list, please feel free
> to flame me off list.
>
> I would like to display a boolean value in my #index view as a
> checkbox that is checked when true and blank when not true.  Is
> there some markup that can do this?  Is it "legal" to embed an
> <input type="checkbox"> tag outside the context of a form?  Even if
> it's "legal", is it considered bad practice?
>
w3c validator doesn't seem to mind.

Fred
Phlip (Guest)
on 2009-01-02 17:08
(Received via mailing list)
Frederick C. wrote:

>> I would like to display a boolean value in my #index view as a
>> checkbox that is checked when true and blank when not true.  Is
>> there some markup that can do this?  Is it "legal" to embed an
>> <input type="checkbox"> tag outside the context of a form?  Even if
>> it's "legal", is it considered bad practice?
>>
> w3c validator doesn't seem to mind.

Under what DOCTYPEs?

(BTW I am building a webpage for a new project - non Rails - with
generated
source. The very first time I ran it thru http://validator.w3.org/ , it
passed
without even a warning. Beat that, Rails!!)

--
   Phlip
Michael L. (Guest)
on 2009-01-02 17:18
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Patrick D. 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> if you are offended by HTML questions on this list, please feel free to
> flame me off list.
>
> I would like to display a boolean value in my #index view as a checkbox that
> is checked when true and blank when not true.  Is there some markup that can
> do this?  Is it "legal" to embed an <input type="checkbox"> tag outside the
> context of a form?  Even if it's "legal", is it considered bad practice?

I was able to get formless inputs to pass validation (as XHTML 1.0
strict or 1.1) at w3.org by putting them inside block elements like
div or table.

> I've poked around a little looking to see what others have done, and I could
> embed a checkmark image in my page, or I could embed the proper Unicode code
> for a checkmark, and hope that the browser has a font installed with that
> character, but it seems to me that the browser must already know how to
> display a checkmark, and in the principle of DRY, I should be able to reuse
> it :-)

While it may not be invalid HTML, I would personally want more control
over the display of this element. I'd much prefer an image or some
other indicator (+ or - characters, for instance). Also the checkbox
control is going to potentially allow the user to select/deselect the
checkbox, whereas an image will not. And what if you later decide
you'd rather have happy/sad face icons? ;)

DRY doesn't really apply here. I suppose you could apply DRY by
writing a helper function to generate a link to the correct image
based on the boolean value. But reusing standard elements in ways they
weren't really designed to be used... just muddles the semantics.

 -Michael

--
Michael C. Libby
www.mikelibby.com
Patrick D. (Guest)
on 2009-01-02 17:39
(Received via mailing list)
> > character, but it seems to me that the browser must already know how to
>
Thanks Michael, Philp, & Fred.  I should have thought of just trying it
and
running it through the validator before asking.  Next time, I'll try
that
first.

FWIW, when I mentioned "DRY" I was referring to reusing the code in the
browser that displays a checkmark, not to any code that I might have
written
in my application.  It was supposed to be a joke, but I guess it died.
Sigh.

Thanks again folks.  I appreciate the tips and opinions.  Please keep
them
coming.

--wpd
Robby R. (Guest)
on 2009-01-02 18:58
(Received via mailing list)
Hmm, I'd advocate that you use images in this place so that people
know it's not something that you can interact with. From a usability
standpoint, if you provide a checkbox that looks like they can
interact with, they might try. Keep it simple and obvious to the
end-user.

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Patrick D. 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> for a checkmark, and hope that the browser has a font installed with that
> character, but it seems to me that the browser must already know how to
> display a checkmark, and in the principle of DRY, I should be able to reuse
> it :-)
>
> --wpd
>
>
> >
>



--
Robby R.
Chief Evangelist, Partner

PLANET ARGON, LLC
design // development // hosting w/Ruby on Rails

http://www.planetargon.com/
http://www.robbyonrails.com/
aim: planetargon

+1 503 445 2457
+1 877 55 ARGON [toll free]
+1 815 642 4068 [fax]
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.