No, it was just an oversight that we should correct.. So, please do ... thanks for volunteering :)
As a rule, I'd say better to err on the side of doing, unless there's a lot of new coding involved that you won't use elsewhere. Worst case, we roll it back. The CVS logs don't give us anywhere to hide. :) If David hasn't gotten back to you about the EL tags, please feel free to do that too if you like. I'm sure David won't mind. He just forgot to add "unless someone beats me to it." :) -Ted. On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:56:13 +0100, Niall Pemberton wrote: > There was an issue raised last week on the user list regarding the > dtd in validator-rules.xml > > The thread was here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/user%40struts.apache.org/msg07353.html > > Looks like validator-rules.xml should be updated to point to > validator_1_1_3.dtd > > Any reason not to do this? > > Niall > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Erik Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: >> Saturday, July 24, 2004 12:31 AM Subject: Re: 1.21 >> >> >>> A week or two ago there was a short discussion of some possibly >>> erroneous DTD references in the latest release, but don't quote >>> me on that. This could possibly have something to do with the >>> validator or might cause problems elsewhere, but you'll have to >>> search the archives for specifics, I can't remember. >>> >>> Erik >>> >>> >>> Matthew Van Horn wrote: >>> >>>> I'm trying but I cannot seem to get the validwhen validation >>>> to work with other validators - especially mask. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure if it is me doing something wrong, or it is >>>> unsupported. >>>> >>>> Here's what I am trying: >>>> <form name="dynaPhoneNumberForm"> >>>> <field property="phoneNumber" depends="validwhen,mask"> <arg0 >>>> key="phoneNumber.displayname" /> <var> <var-name>test</var- >>>> name> >>>> <var-value>(submit == 'delete') or (*this* != null)</var- >>>> value> </var> <var> <var-name>mask</var-name> <var- >>>> value>^\d{4}-\d{4}$</var-value> </var> </field> </form> >>>> >>>> Other than this, I have not had major issues yet. >>>> >>>> On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 07:40, Vic Cekvenich wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Is anyone using 1.21 in production? >>>>> >>>>> Any issues... ? Any issues w/ validator? >>>>> >>>>> tia, >>>>> .V >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> --------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user- >>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e- >>>>> mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ----- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user- >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
