On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 01:36 +0200, Neboj=?UTF-8?B?xaE=?=a =?UTF-8?B?xJA=?=or=?UTF-8?B?xJE=?= evi=?UTF-8?B?xIcg?= wrote: > On 4/1/07 5:12 AM, "Malcolm Tredinnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Can you elaborate on the logic behind this request? These are meant to > > validate the fields, right? So you are asking for validation that > > doesn't validate. > > Well, I need this for the Serbian JMBG validation (something similar to SSN) > because there are numbers which are invalid when validated and still in use > (strange, don't ask me why ;)).
You could never use the truly strict validation in this case. Remember, these are things designed to be used on a website. So imagine you are constructing a website that accepts JMBG entries. You have to accept all in-use numbers (which I would argue are, by definition, valid). So a validator that only used some particular algorithm and rejected certain legally in-use numbers is not a validator at all, since it generates false negatives. My point is that, in this case, there aren't two possible settingsi, there is only one -- the other one doesn't accept the right numbers. Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
