Here's another of the old notes that didn't make it...
From: Charlie Arehart [mailto:careh...@carehart.org] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:12 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 You make a fair point, Dawn, on the value of doing SS validation, and CS if only to help the user (those the "reams of JS" in this case are written by CF, and really not that much code created anyway). But to clarify, since you wrote in reply to my note and say "this is why I never use it", I want to repeat that the problem Ajas is tripping over is one that would happen to anyone who used _date as the suffix of a form field name (because CF trips over that thinking it's the old style SS validation). But I will grant that if he had not used validate="onserver", then yes, he would not have hit this issue, for the fields that do not end in _date. /charlie From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Dawn Hoagland Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:00 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 And this is why I never use it unless the "user" has their knickers in a wad to know about the error before they go to the next page. Even then I usually don't bother (especially if they are on an intranet) because the server validation is so quick they don't realize that they've just *gasp* submitted the form and received clear, concise error messages without the developer writing reams of JavaScript code (which users can - and will disable) since I have to check it on the server anyway. If they ask, I just tell them that clicking the submit button triggers the validation code. Well - it does :) Now Flex is a whole 'nother can of worms and many times I validate the second the user changes the value or focus. Dawn On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Charlie Arehart <char...@carehart.org> wrote: 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. <snip> ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------
