>>>>> "CD" == Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CD> On Thu, 26 May 2005, Uri Guttman wrote: >> >>>>> "CD" == Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> CD> Properly done, validation should happen on *both* sides, CD> but minimally it has to happen on your side. >> >> it doesn't ever have to be done on the client side. CD> Right. 'ever' being the key word. it is not required. it is totally a UI issue which is not the OP's problem. so please stop pushing js where it can't fix the problem. it does nothing for the server. it can help the user if done well. 'nuff said on UI. >> that is totally a 'user unfriendly' design choice CD> Sorry, but I don't think that's true. you missed the hidden :). i used a very tiny font! CD> *Badly done* javascript can be user unfriendly, but that's not what I'm CD> sticking up for here. I said *properly done* client side Javascript CD> code. It does exist, and it does make web applications Better. but his problem is validation where js can't do diddly. it can do some UI validation but no way it can fix his missing field as LWP won't run the js. CD> Reflexively dismissing the ways that Javascript can make web CD> applications better is as bad as any other form of cargo culting. it isn't reflexive. i am addressing the OP's problem directly. js or any client side shit can never do what he wants as some other client can skip it. all web apps must/should do proper data validation and never assume anything was done in the client. this is not cargo culting but proper client/server design. uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
