cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>
Subject Re: Widget states: let's do it (was Re: CForms making widgets invisible)
Date Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:42:23 GMT
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:

> Vadim Gritsenko <vadim@reverycodes.com> writes:
> 
>>Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>>
>>>Vadim Gritsenko <vadim@reverycodes.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>Phones, credit card numbers, SSN, EIN, ITIN, etc, all can 
>>>>be valid in parts but not valid as a whole.
>>>
>>>For most of these cases you should probably use a single field for 
>>>data entry.
>>
>>You'd do one way, and other guy would do another way, 
>>especially if he 
>>has UI designer in-house.
> 
> If it's a single UI designer, maybe, with 3 UI designers in house I
> don't expect we'll ever reach agreement on exactly how things should be
> done, but point taken.

:-)


>>>To me, an error message saying "Invalid area code: '9o1'" is more 
>>>meaningful than an error message saying "Invalid phone number: 
>>>'9o1-555-5555'".
>>
>>Nobody and nothing discussed in this thread stops you from 
>>doing just that.
> 
> Fair enough, but you still haven't given me any reason why you need to
> do validation on the aggregate field vs. the individual component
> fields...

I thought it's clear. You can't query Yellow Book or Equifax on partial 
entry. First, you have to combine values into one. Of course, first you 
can run validation on parts (is it 3 characters in length? is it 
numbers? is it in fast lookup table?), but it does not guarantee that 
the whole will be valid value.

But I think it's getting offtopic :)

Vadim


Mime
View raw message