|
|
Posted by Werner on 05/11/05 00:19
Hi!
Vincente has a good point, imho.
Cheers.
Vicente Werner wrote:
>On 5/10/05, Marcus Bointon <marcus@synchromedia.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> From a customer point of view, client side validation is very much
>>in line with creating a trouble-free system.
>>
>>
>Don't think so, javascript is the gate to all problems, until they put
>a really stable javascript implementation, javascript is nothing but
>trouble: Take for example qforms, probably the most robust dhtml
>validation system I know of (better than formcat, formsess, etc..),
>still has a significant amount of browsers where it dosn't work as it
>should, and even on those that looks like works flawlessly there're
>some situations that ruin it.
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>Call me lazy, but certainly I don't see the benefits outweighting the
>effort just to make it run, you still have to duplicate work and it's
>not worth it.
>
>
>
>>I disagree - they insist that you do duplicate your work if you want
>>both client and server side validation.
>>
>>
>No, they just don't think it's the way to do things (why have two
>systems, with double probability of failure?, use one)
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>I know it's not impossible, but you're adding extra work.. and extra
>code that might break up: don't code more than necessary if you want
>to keep your system as trouble free as possible.
>
>
>
>>I hadn't got as far as integration with form generation, but that
>>would be the next logical step.
>>
>>
>Qforms although it has some form generation capabilities is mostly a
>GOOD validation tool.
>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|