|
|
Posted by Greg Dykema on 05/10/05 20:21
On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:24:32 +0100, Marcus Bointon wrote
> Well, no-one said it was easy... but you don't have to do it for
> every browser, because it can always fall back to server-side
> validation (which you must do anyway when JS is unavailable). Client-
> side validation is better for both the visitor (much faster) and
> the server (reduced load). I've had a look at formsess (which does
> seem to be languishing) and FormCat, however, neither capitalise on
> the fact that you've already set up all the validation rules in
> SmartyValidate, requiring you to set up validation rules twice. It
> just seems that an integrated client/server validation solution
> would be ideal for pretty much everyone?
I'm with Marcus on this one--a common set of Smarty tags that does both (or
can do both) seems like the ideal situation. A well-written JS library can
take itself out of the picture, leaving you with server-side validation, if it
doesn't detect the needed browser support, and form validation is hardly
pushing the JS or DOM envelope.
I've used FormCat with good results, although I had to tweak a few things to
get it to work with oddly named form elements. I suggested to the author that
he look into a way to share markup with SmartyValidate but he didn't seem
interested. I'd be willing to help work on such a thing if there's nothing out
there...
greg
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|