Thanks for all that, and fair enough. I missed the looping that was appending more to the field name, but the info may still help someone.
And indeed what you've confirmed is what I would have said if you'd stopped at your first paragraph: the onserver validation is causing CF to create the hidden field (albeit in a new format, different from the old style _date kind-check out the HTML source generated to see it), and that new hidden field name is still clearly causing CF to continue to do the conversion to odbc dateformat. I'll grant it's as annoying now as the old approach was then, but at least what you tried confirmed things. You could raise the concern to Adobe to say, "hey, it's cool and all that your server-side validation (old or new approach) can validate dates, but why convert it also to odbc date format?" /charlie From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Ajas Mohammed Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:22 PM To: discussion@acfug.org Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] weird cfinput vs input stuff. date is shown as {d '2009-02-12'} vs 02/12/2009 Hi Charlie, Thanks for pointing out _date validation. That would make sense. But if you notice, from the code, I use a loop and I am *appending* the index number variable #thisrow# to the end of the cfinput absence_date#this_row#. So technically, CF should not have done the _date validation as you mentioned Ajas, what you're being tripped up by is the fact that you're using a suffix of _date for your input field. My take is that, this is not the case. ------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com -------------------------------------------------------------
