go for "manual" JS validation.
My 0.02...
Benoit Hediard
www.benorama.com
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Dave Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Envoyé : mardi 11 février 2003 19:34
> À : CF-Talk
> Objet : Re: CFFORM vs FORM
>
>
> very true
> just hard to
ting
www.navtrak.net
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: charlie griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFFORM vs FORM
did i hit a nerve there, junior?
Tony Weeg writes:
> wellsince I don't have all day to c
ime.
>
> later
>
>
> ...tony
>
> Tony Weeg
> Senior Web Developer
> UnCertified Advanced ColdFusion Developer
> Information System Design
> Navtrak, Inc.
> Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting
> www.navtrak.net
> 410.548.2337
>
> -
k, Inc.
Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting
www.navtrak.net
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:46 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFFORM vs FORM
- Original Message -
From: "Tony
- Original Message -
From: "charlie griefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: CFFORM vs FORM
> Dave Lyons writes:
>
> > I distinctly remember reading in Ben Forta book cfwack,
From: "Charlie Griefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:46 AM
> Subject: Re: CFFORM vs FORM
>
>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTE
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: CFFORM vs FORM
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: T
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 6:42 AM
Subject: RE: CFFORM vs FORM
> well, that makes sense for someone proficient in js :)
> for those of us who arent,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:42 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFFORM vs FORM
>
>
> well, that makes sense for someone proficient in js :)
> for those of us who arent, it really is a blessing.
>
> NOTICE TO ALL WHO ARE NOT HIGHLY PROFICIENT
> Anyway this whole client side validation thing is just a pain, save
> yourself
> a lot of headache and only perform server side validation, I feel there is
> a
> time
> for JS and not.
While you always want to do server-side validation (never rely solely on
client-side validation,) qForms makes
e and only perform server side validation, I feel there is a
time
for JS and not.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 February 2003 13:42
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFFORM vs FORM
well, that makes sense for someone proficient in js :)
for those of us who
toring, mapping & reporting
www.navtrak.net
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: "Dan G. Switzer [mailto:"Dan G. Switzer]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:01 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFFORM vs FORM
Thane,
> I've been reading the archives, and there seems to be
Thane,
> I've been reading the archives, and there seems to be a lot of people who
> say one should avoid CFFORM and use FORM instead. I'm using CF5. Would
> it
> make sense for me to abandon CFFORM? What are the pros and cons?
>
> T
I personally found that the CFFORM code lack in a lot of ar
vtrak, Inc.
Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting
www.navtrak.net
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:43 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFFORM vs FORM
Thane Sherrington wrote:
> I've
42
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFFORM vs FORM
well, that makes sense for someone proficient in js :)
for those of us who arent, it really is a blessing.
NOTICE TO ALL WHO ARE NOT HIGHLY PROFICIENT IN JS
CFMX AND CFFORM TAGS ARE OK
...tony
Tony Weeg
Senior Web Developer
UnCertified Adv
Message-
From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFFORM vs FORM
well, that makes sense for someone proficient in js :)
for those of us who arent, it really is a blessing.
NOTICE TO ALL WHO ARE NOT HIGHLY PROFICIENT IN JS
CFMX
Thane Sherrington wrote:
> I've been reading the archives, and there seems to be a lot of people who
> say one should avoid CFFORM and use FORM instead. I'm using CF5. Would it
> make sense for me to abandon CFFORM? What are the pros and cons?
Pro: convenience for you
Con: convenience for the
Design
Navtrak, Inc.
Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting
www.navtrak.net
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: Peter Mayer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFFORM vs FORM
I suggest you to use simple form tags ins
-Original Message-
> From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I've been reading the archives, and there seems to be a lot of people who
> say one should avoid CFFORM and use FORM instead. I'm using CF5. Would
it
> make sense for me to abandon CFFORM? What are the pros and con
I suggest you to use simple form tags instead of CFFORM. CFFORM blackboxes
a lot of things and does not always lead to the desired results.
Furthermore, in very simple forms it's overkill because it adds javascript
to each call.
My prefered method is it to create forms with the standard form
usion Developer
Information System Design
Navtrak, Inc.
Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting
www.navtrak.net
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: "Robertson-Ravo [mailto:"Robertson-Ravo]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFFORM vs
Yes its crap, just use a normal form and use JS for all the fluff.
-Original Message-
From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 February 2003 13:09
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFFORM vs FORM
I've been reading the archives, and there seems to be a lot of people who
say one sho
22 matches
Mail list logo
