Posted by Vicente Werner on 05/11/05 09:12

On 5/11/05, Matt Warden <mwarden@gmail.com> wrote:
> The bottom line, unfortunately, is that you are simply showing your
> ignorance in the matter. You are making it obvious that you do not
> know how to write Javascript that degrades well.
Before saying that take the time to read all the thread, maybe I got
somewhat vehement, but I do know how to write javascript that degrades
well -I've been doing it when the proyect required it- but in my
experience the benefits are few and the cost is not justifiable in
most cases -of course if the client pays it, I'll do it-

> By the way, I know that SmartyValidate/HTML_QuickForm follow #1, but I
> do not know about #2.
It follows #2 to a high degree, but still in cases it fails miserabily
-with theoretically supported browsers-, qforms wich is the most
robust javascript validation tool I've heard of, also has that
problems. And I've few time to deal with small that need solution
outside the main development line of it.

> In HTML_QuickForm, the "duplicating work" is simply passing 'client'
> as the last argument in a function.

> There is no increase in probability of failure. They are duplicate
> systems in series.
Of course there's, the probability of having a bug depends of code size.

> The "extra" code is necessary to create a form using best practices;
> server-side validation for your data's sake, and client-side for your
> users' sake.
Probably client side might enhance some users experience, but in the
market I mostly work (spanish) the customer feedback dosn't justify
it.

[Back to original message]