2008/3/22, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm trying to use @validate but it does not quite fit my needs.
Especially the fact that it automatically calls htmlfill which fails to
handle XHTML makes it a no-go. I do see a use for htmlfill behaviour,
but I'ld prefer if that happens as
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I'm trying to use @validate but it does not quite fit my needs.
Especially the fact that it automatically calls htmlfill which fails to
handle XHTML makes it a no-go.
Can you give an example of the XHTML it breaks on? This might not be a
difficult thing to resolve in
Previously Ian Bicking wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I'm trying to use @validate but it does not quite fit my needs.
Especially the fact that it automatically calls htmlfill which fails to
handle XHTML makes it a no-go.
Can you give an example of the XHTML it breaks on? This might not
On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the moment you get all four in one decorator. If you want a subset of
them you have to code the whole thing yourself. I'm not sure what the
best way to make that more modular - we don't want to make the common
case more
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
validate does lots of things:
- it extract parameters from a request according to a defined schema
- it validates the decoded data
- it optionally redirect the request elsewhere if validation fails
- it
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
validate does lots of things:
- it extract parameters from a request according to a defined schema
- it validates the decoded data
These can't be that hard, can they? If they are hard, then we could
push a little something back into FormEncode, I suppose. If these
On Mar 23, 10:32 pm, Ian Bicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These can't be that hard, can they? If they are hard, then we could
push a little something back into FormEncode, I suppose. If these are
easy, then not using @validate should be easy, as it's the second two
items that I think
