Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 59703 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2004 23:21:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Nov 2004 23:21:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 93055 invoked by uid 500); 2 Nov 2004 23:21:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 93002 invoked by uid 500); 2 Nov 2004 23:21:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 92989 invoked by uid 99); 2 Nov 2004 23:21:20 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [213.228.0.44] (HELO postfix3-1.free.fr) (213.228.0.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:21:20 -0800 Received: from [192.168.0.100] (lns-vlq-39f-81-56-134-235.adsl.proxad.net [81.56.134.235]) by postfix3-1.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A9617348F for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 00:21:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4188166C.6050109@apache.org> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:21:16 +0100 From: Sylvain Wallez Organization: Anyware Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [lazy vote] cforms request processing References: <20041101144706.GM26283@localhost> <32899.80.219.8.172.1099354401.squirrel@80.219.8.172> <20041102050841.GD21226@localhost> <33046.80.219.8.172.1099427904.squirrel@80.219.8.172> <20041102210616.GF21226@localhost> <33152.80.219.8.172.1099430792.squirrel@80.219.8.172> In-Reply-To: <33152.80.219.8.172.1099430792.squirrel@80.219.8.172> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Antonio Gallardo wrote: >Hi Tim: > >As I told before I am not sure. I really want to see what the other people >will said here. I also already saw that Sylvain voted +1 for the changes. >But I am not sure if this is correct or not. That is all. > > Yes, I'm +1. Or +10, +100 and even +1000 :-) This issue has raised a number of questions from users seeing some fields unexpectedly loosing their values, and has been discussed at length. The only visible change, as stated by Tim, is the need for boolean fields to be accompanied by a "presence notifier" input, whose purpose is to indicate that a boolean field is present in the form. This is required to circumvent the fact that HTML sends nothing for an unchecked checkbox, and therefore doesn't allow to know if the chekbox is present but unchecked, or is absent in the page. This has absolutely no impact on the fact that only widgets present in the form read request parameters, and that therefore no one can input value that doesn't match a widget. Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }