On 4/2/07 1:41 AM, "Malcolm Tredinnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 Well this numbers are valid, problem is that lot's of them are manually created so some of them have incorrect checksum fields. :) > 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. (it was a quick response, while I worked on validator it seemed that strict option is a good idea) I agree, for the my case I must accept invalid data so strict=True/False is a no-option. I planned just to do some basic checks (without checksum calculations) and, maybe, show a warning when incorrect entry is detected. OTOH, there are fields which can be validated in full so for them strict validation is a must. -- Nebojša Đorđević - nesh, ICQ#43799892, http://www.linkedin.com/in/neshdj Studio Quattro - Niš - Serbia http://studioquattro.biz/ | http://code.google.com/p/django-utils/ Registered Linux User 282159 [http://counter.li.org] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
