Hello Brian,
It also looks like you need standardize your development practices. Why
are you supporting 3 or more http POST/Get options? You will help your
self in the long run if you simplify this and use just one or two.
Believe me, I would really like to standardize on one POST/GET option.
But neither can I switch <a href's/> to use POST nor can I tell forms to
use GET _and_ transport the full UTF charset at the same time. So this
limitation (of not being able to standardize) comes from the HTTP/HTML
standard, not from my development practice.
Also
page fragments usually are not used as dynamic parts of forms unless
they are all standardized.
Why shouldn't they? Forms can have redundant parts that can be
eliminated by using includes just as pages without forms.
In my case, the fragments are not even part of the form itself, but are
included on the target page of the form. The target page can be target
of many different operations and has not got a clue how it will be
requested (POST/GET, see above).
> The situation remains that you
> need to have the parameters passed as hidden fields. This will be true
> of any file upload option.
How can I pass in a hidden field into an include? How can I even POST to
an include? IMHO this is not possible. AFAIK, using URL parameters is
the official way to pass parameters to an include. That's why
<c:import..><c:param.../></c:import> was invented. As I said in my last
post, POSTs with default encoding somehow manage to get the parameters
transmitted into includes, however POSTs with
enctype="multipart/form-data" do not.
Last point you want to have all replys to the tread go to the list not
the individual person responding.
I'm sorry, I had posted to the list, and I told you in my introduction.
I was mailing to you directly because I was under the impression that
you missed my post.
Regards,
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
