Posted by Vicente Werner on 05/10/05 16:04

On 5/10/05, Marcus Bointon <marcus@synchromedia.co.uk> 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).
Why duplicate work? Provide the safest and more trouble - free system,
and you'll be happy.
>Client-
> side validation is better for both the visitor (much faster) and the
> server (reduced load).
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'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.
Of course, most of em rely on the fact that you don't want to
duplicate your work, 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.

> It
> just seems that an integrated client/server validation solution would
> be ideal for pretty much everyone?

As I said I don't agree, but if you wanna give it a try a good
starting point will be qforms.

[Back to original message]