|
|
Posted by Marcus Bointon on 05/10/05 20:15
On 10 May 2005, at 14:04, Vicente Werner wrote:
> Why duplicate work? Provide the safest and more trouble - free system,
> and you'll be happy.
From a customer point of view, client side validation is very much
in line with creating a trouble-free system.
> Can't agree here: it's just better for the client in case it uses a
> browser that works ok with your javascript code, all the rest might
> end with strange behaviours or without validation.
I'm not even going to begin to suggest that it attempts to work in
all browsers. Even in these enlightened Firefox times, IE6 still
counts for ~90% of traffic. If I had client-side validation that ONLY
ran in IE6, it would serve the vast majority of clients well, with no
impact on javascript compatibility elsewhere. Everyone else can fall
back to server-side validation. Further compatibility can wait.
Having said that, it's not as if validation requires cutting edge
DHTML that's likely to break that badly.
> Of course, most of em rely on the fact that you don't want to
> duplicate your work,
I disagree - they insist that you do duplicate your work if you want
both client and server side validation.
> and on the other side, how're you going to send
> the server side rules to your client? You'll need a bridge to fill the
> gap.
That's not hard - if a smarty plugin can generate appropriate
template content and messages for validation on the server side, then
it can also generate Javascript to do the same thing on the client
side. Put it like this - SmartyValidate is a set of Smarty plugins to
add server-side validation, FormCat is another set to do the same on
the client side. What's preventing someone from making the two work
from a single interface? The key thing seems to be that the server-
side plugins would have to be able to generate a JS code block that's
passed to the template, encapsulating the appropriate client-side
validation. This would imply that the rules are defined only on the
server side (i.e. not in the template), but then that's what
SmartyValidate already does.
> As I said I don't agree, but if you wanna give it a try a good
> starting point will be qforms.
I hadn't got as far as integration with form generation, but that
would be the next logical step.
Marcus
--
Marcus Bointon
Synchromedia Limited: Putting you in the picture
marcus@synchromedia.co.uk | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|