Bug #5512
form view helper produces invalid XHTML output
Status: | Resolved | Start date: | 2009-11-26 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Could have | Due date: | ||
Assigned To: | Bastian Waidelich | % Done: | 100% |
|
Category: | ViewHelpers | |||
Target version: | - | |||
Has patch: | Affected Flow version: |
Description
By default the form view helper inserts hidden fields for referrer & hmac to the generated form at the very top.
I just found out, that this is not XHTML compliant as In XHTML 1.0 Strict mode all inputs have to be put in a block element.
I'd suggest to wrap the auto-generated hidden fields by
<div style="display: none"></div>
Related issues
Associated revisions
[+BUGFIX] Fluid (ViewHelpers): FormViewHelper wraps hidden fields with a div tag to create XHTML valid output. This fixes #5512
History
#1 Updated by Bastian Waidelich over 5 years ago
- File 5512_form_view_helper_produces_invalid_XHTML_output.patch added
- Assigned To set to Sebastian Kurfuerst
@Sebastian: could you please verify the attached patch and commit if ok?
#2 Updated by Bastian Waidelich over 5 years ago
new version with tweaked output (new lines)
#3 Updated by Bastian Waidelich over 5 years ago
Mh.. another XHTML compatibility issue:
in XHTML 1.0 Strict it's not allowed to set the "name" attribute of the form tag. The problem is: Fluid relies on the name attribute..
#4 Updated by Thomas Deinhamer over 5 years ago
I'd use a fieldset element instead of a div element,
seems to me more "native".
#5 Updated by Sebastian Kurfuerst over 5 years ago
- Status changed from New to Needs Feedback
- Assigned To deleted (
Sebastian Kurfuerst) - Priority changed from Must have to Could have
We need to discuss this issue, as I somehow have a bad gut feeling when the <f:form> adds markup like "div".
#6 Updated by Bastian Waidelich over 5 years ago
- Assigned To set to Sebastian Kurfuerst
Sebastian Kurfuerst wrote:
I somehow have a bad gut feeling when the <f:form> adds markup like "div".
I don't know.. It already does add additional HTML, which I don't really like. But there is no way around that yet* - so at least they should be added in a (X)HTML compliant way in my opinion.
btw: I'm reassigning this to you so you get notified ;)
- In FLOW3 there will be a request stack that might make this "hidden field magic" unnecessary. Do you remember if something like this planned too for extbase?
#7 Updated by Sebastian Kurfuerst about 5 years ago
- Assigned To deleted (
Sebastian Kurfuerst)
#8 Updated by Bastian Waidelich about 5 years ago
- Assigned To set to Bastian Waidelich
#9 Updated by Bastian Waidelich about 5 years ago
- Status changed from Needs Feedback to Resolved
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
Applied in changeset r4872.