I'm missing something here. Why can't you just test to see if the variable is defined or not on your script?
On Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Alex Brelsfoard wrote: >> Forgive my ignorance, but why would it be a problem not to have these? >> > > Picture a web form that is some sort of a survey. When that survey is > submit the perl script writes out the answers onto a file. That file > is > tab delimited. > Now picture the first person going to the form and filling everything > out, > including all checkboxes and radio buttons. > Now the second person comes along and chooses not to fill in a radio > button. When that form's information is sent to the script it is > missing > that radio buttons field name and therefore misses that tab, and all > the > results get skewed. Information becomes invalid, people get unhappy, > heads are lost, cats and dogs start getting married, and all the worlds > wine turns into bags of turnips. > In other words, not terribly fun. > --Alex > >> On 5/26/05, Philipp Hanes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> The following ideas are options I would _not_ like >>>> to follow if possible: >>>> - set a default checkbox or redio button (so something is >>>> always filled in). >>>> - use a hidden field to list of all the fields in the form. >>>> - have the perl script read the HTML code from the page and >>>> make its own list. >>>> - javascript >>>> >>>> I kinda understand why the browser doesn't send this >>>> information (no value >>>> to hold onto), but there HAS to be a solution for this. >>>> Seems frightfully >>>> stupid not to have an easy option out there for something like this. >>> >>> No solution other than the ones you mentioned, that I'm aware of. >>> What we've done is generally a hidden field that gets fiddled with >>> via >>> JavaScript when the checkbox is changed. Then the back-end code just >>> looks >>> at the hidden field, and can be totally oblivious to what's really >>> going >>> on >>> in the HTML. >>> Yup, seems stupid to me, each time I run into it again, too. >>> I'd be curious if someone has come up with something better. >>> Doubtful, though. >>> good luck philipp >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Boston-pm mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Boston-pm mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Boston-pm mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm > _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
