MG>radiobuttons are tricky
MG>if any of the radio buttons with type="radio" contain the required attribute
MG>then all of elements with type="radio" (the radiogroup collection) are
considered to be 'required'
MG>http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/forms.html#the-required-attribute
MG>enabling "HTML5 compliance" justifies the effort
MG>+1
> From: lukaszlen...@apache.org
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:18:27 +0200
> Subject: Re: Proposal: "required" attribute changes (related to WW-4188)
> To: dev@struts.apache.org
>
> Duplication or do you want to start that over?
>
> 2013/9/11 rgm <r...@rgm.nu>:
> > So as not to pollute the JIRAs too much with speculation or suggestions
> > that haven't been thought out, I'd like to have a discussion about the
> > "required" attribute here on the list.
> >
> > I propose that we revert the changes made in WW-3908, namely -- turn
> > "requiredLabel" back into "required." Then, to support the html5 required
> > boolean attribute, change "themes/simple/text.ftl" to check <#if
> > parameters.required?default(false)> required="required" </#if>.
> >
> > This is a backwards compatible change (from the themes/simple/text.ftl
> > perspective). It is also backwards compatible with templates made before
> > Struts 2.3.12.
> >
> > It has a side effect that modern browsers will enforce client-side
> > validation for text fields like this:
> > <@s.textfield name="whatever" required=true />
> >
> > I believe this side effect to be universally beneficial, but I could be
> > wrong about that.
> >
> > CONS:
> >
> > * Some folks have already gone and updated their templates to change
> > "required" to "requiredLabel." These folks would have to go back and
> > revert that, unless logic was put in to see if requiredLabel was one of
> > "true" "false" or other. :-/ On the other hand, this frees up the
> > "requiredLabel" attribute to be a String again, and allow per-field
> > overriding of the default asterisk (*) character.
> >
> > * (maybe) Some folks may not want clients to enforce "required" in forms.
> >
> > PROS:
> >
> > * html5 required attribute, being specific to the way a tag is rendered,
> > should be handled in themes where rendering logic exists.
> >
> > * Avoids "required=false" problem in 2.3.15.1, which confusingly does cause
> > modern browsers to require a field. For this reason alone, "required"
> > should not be a dynamic attribute.
> >
> > * Backwards compatible with pre-2.3.12 templates.
> >
> > * (subjective) Tag usage feels more natural -- "required" sounds like a
> > boolean, "requiredLabel" sounds like a String.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > -rgm
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
>
