* Marc Portier: > > > Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote: > > * Marc Portier: > > > >> Coming back to that original date issue in fact I'm afraid > >> I don't get it yet completely? At which time is this > >> 'org.w3c.util.DateParser' active? How does this become a > >> problem of the binding? > > > > CForms was generating <date></date>, which is not a valid date. > > It is interpreted as time 0. This is when binding a date widget. > > Well, I still don't get it > > Not a valid date for who? Some back-end processing the xml afterwards? > > I've just done a small test which shows cforms is perfectly happy to > bind to some <date /> or <date></date> in the xml...
OK, and then, what is the date displayed? Say for example the date is an optional field. You leave it blank, the XML is saved with empty tag, and then you edit it again. What is displayed? > I also find no references to this mentioned org.w3c.util.DateParser in > the cocoon code-base, I couldn't even find it in any of the jars we > distribute... (actually outside cocoon the only references I've found > to it so far are jigsaw and some css-validator) This is part of another patch, see Add support for ISO8601 in I18nTransformer and Forms http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1648 -- Jean-Baptiste Quenot aka John Banana Qwerty http://caraldi.com/jbq/
