Sean A Corfield wrote: > On Wednesday, Feb 19, 2003, at 11:21 US/Pacific, Mosh Teitelbaum wrote: > > And, not being a Flash guy, I > > would assume that there be a similar level of effort required to > > prefill > > Flash form fields as HTML form fields, etc. > > Prefill? Well, if you wanted to save a partially completed form to disk > as Local Shared Objects and restore it when the user returned, yes, you > would have to code all of that just like you would in CF (using > whatever persistence mechanism you wanted). The benefit of Flash is not > requiring a database schema to be set up for transient form data and > not having to age off incomplete forms.
My apologies; maybe "prefill" was the wrong word. I meant prefilling a previously viewed form field with previously entered data *from the current visit.* That is, user completes Form1, moves on to Form2, and than decides to return to Form1. I meant "prefill" as in Form1's data would still be intact. This wouldn't require saving the data to the DB, hard drive, or even SESSION. It could just be carried from form to form via hidden form fields. Given this use of "prefill," I would think that Flash and HTML coding would be similar. But again, I'm not a Flash guy. > And I'm not a Flash guy either. Howdy 8^). > > The benefits of Flash would be a single trip (vs. multiple trips) to > > the server and the ability to make a pretty UI while the benefits of > > HTML are universal compatibility and familiarity (among others). > > Flash is probably more compatible with browsers across the globe than > much of the HTML folks write - 98% of browsers have the plugin and it > works the same way on all of those browsers. As for familiarity, I > think the introduction of standard Flash UI Components has done a lot > to mitigate the quirkiness of many earlier Flash apps. Ah yes, invalid HTML. OK, valid HTML should be 100% compatible with browsers (I know, it's not, but it should be) vs. Flash's 98%. I guess this is a toss up. When I said "familiarity," I meant the coder's familiarity with HTML vs. ActionScript, not the user's familiarity with form widgets. Flash's form widgets may actually be more familiar to the user since they include more than the limited set support by HTML (can anyone says "data grid?") and are infinitely more scriptable. > I just want to make the point that Flash *is* a good match for this > sort of problem and can produce a very effective solution... *if* you > know Flash. I'm picking it up as I go and finding it's mostly > straightforward, given my knowledge of scripting languages like > CFScript... I'm in a similar boat... picking it up as I go along. I'm still more of an HTML Purist of sorts though and would prefer to get stuff done via HTML, CSS, and JavaScript instead of Flash. Simply because it's (supposedly) more universally supported. And more web technologies integrate with HTML versus Flash (ex. screen readers, etc.). > And of course I like to play Devil's Advocate :) But then, who doesn't? 8^) -- Mosh Teitelbaum evoch, LLC Tel: (301) 942-5378 Fax: (301) 933-3651 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.evoch.com/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
