On 1/25/09, Ron Savage <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lyle > > > > I see. But there isn't a Pure Perl parser available, and for those that > > really can't get HTML::Parser on their cheap shared hosting, isn't a > > regexp that works most/some of the time better than nothing? > > > No, it's not 'better than nothing'. Ever. > > All you're doing is lighting the fuse on a time-bomb. > >
Fortunately I am neither advocating nor desiring a pure-Perl form validation module, but I don't understand the resistance to this. The poor bloke is saying -- "look, I have folks who want to utilize my scripts in situations where they cannot compile modules... what do I do? Give them something or give them nothing?" I am surprised that there is so much vehemence against this. I don't believe Lyle is saying that a pure-Perl alternative is better or even as good as the compiled modules... all he wants is an alternative, which, while most likely unsuitable for more than the simple cases, is likely a pretty good fit for those simple cases. In fact, my suggestion would be to not do any form validation with Perl as much as possible... form validation should be done in the browser, and it just might be best to do it with JavaScript so good data reaches the server in the first place. Then, on the server, check for sanity and security. In any case, I respectfully disagree with the "Ever" qualification to "No, it's not 'better than nothing.'" There just might be situations in which it maybe better than nothing. Puneet. ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
