Typing too fast. Corrections inline below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Van Riper, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:19 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Is this a validator DTD bug? > > > I have a working Struts 1.1-b2 based webapp that uses the validation > framework. My validation.xml file doesn't validate > successfully against this > DTD requirement: > > <!ELEMENT field (msg?, arg0?, arg1?, arg2?, arg3?, var* )> > > because when I use both the minlength and maxlength > validations on a single > field, I end up with more than one <arg1> element inside the > field element > definition like so: > > <field property="zip" depends="minlength,maxlength"> > <arg0 key="prompt.zip"/> > <arg1 name="minlength" key="${var:minlength}" > resource="false"/> > <arg1 name="maxlength" key="${var:maxlength}" > resource="false"/> > <var> > <var-name>minlength</var-name> > <var-value>5</var-value> > </var> > <var> > <var-name>maxlength</var-name> > <var-value>10</var-value> > </var> > </field> > > Unless the <arg1> is defined separately for minlength and maxlength > validations, it is not possible to generate the correct > validation error > message with the appropriate minlength or maxlength value > inserted in the > error message. This is why I believe that the DTD needs to > change like so: > > <!ELEMENT field (msg*, arg0*, arg1*, arg2*, arg3*, var* )> > > Otherwise, you are *not* allowed to specify different <msg> > or <argx> values > when multiple validation rules are being used. I already > posted this on the > struts-user list, but, James Holmes recommended that I post > it directly to > the Commons list as the Validator is part of the Commons now. > > I realize that in all the examples arg0 is used by convention for the > display name of the field. Even in my webapp, that one could > be left as > "arg0+" without causing any problems. However, I don't think
I meant "arg0?" here. > the framework > should rely on that convention. So, it would be best to make > them all allow > zero or more (*) rather than zero or one (+) occurrences. Ditto here. I meant, "rather than zero or one (?) occurrences." > > If I were setup so that I could easily submit the CVS diff in > a bug report, > I would. If it would help, I'd be glad to submit this as a > bug report though > without the CVS diff for tracking purposes. > > - Mike Van Riper > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
