Ah, thanks for the hint, forgot to update that comment. Fixed it now! Jörn
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Dr Stevens <[email protected]> wrote: > > gotcha, figured that out after my last post. > > I actually got here from your last comment on "http://bassistance.de/ > jquery-plugins/jquery-plugin-validation/". I will make note to use > (validate) instead. > > On Sep 15, 12:47 pm, Jörn Zaefferer <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I actually changed the plugin page to ask for "(validate)". When you >> use Google Groups in an email client, the subject is displayed just >> fined, while the Web interface removes the prefix. >> >> Jörn >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Dr Stevens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Sorry for the spam, fixing the subject >> >> > On Sep 15, 12:39 pm, Dr Stevens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks for your help. You always seem to be very quick to respond and >> >> I, along with everyone else I'm sure, am very appreciative. >> >> >> Great plugin! >> >> >> On Sep 15, 12:35 pm, Jörn Zaefferer <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > You shouldn't use "visible-required" as the method name. Stick with a >> >> > valid JavaScript identifier (probably should have mentioned that). >> >> >> > As long as you do that, you can use addMethod to alias existing >> >> > methods with other default messages. On the other hand, addClassRules >> >> > doesn't help at all with messages. >> >> >> > Jörn >> >> >> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Dr Stevens <[email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > > I'm using the validate plugin to validate ASP.NET webforms on the >> >> > > client (I'd prefer to not use webforms, but for now I'm stuck with >> >> > > it). Because I'm using webforms, I'm trying to get around using the >> >> > > clientID of server controls. The metadata plugin works great, but I'd >> >> > > prefer to not use it because it's gonna blow up my markup. >> >> >> > > Is there any way to utilize jQuery.validator.addClassRules to add >> >> > > custom messages to a rule? Take the following for instance: >> >> >> > > jQuery.validator.addMethod("visible-required", function(value, >> >> > > element) { >> >> > > return $(element).is(":hidden") || !this.optional(element); >> >> > > }, "This is required when visible"); >> >> >> > > jQuery.validator.addClassRules("fool", { >> >> > > visible-required: true, >> >> > > lettersonly: true, >> >> > > messages: { >> >> > > visible-required: "My specific field must is required", >> >> > > lettersonly: "Letters only fool!" >> >> > > } >> >> > > }); >> >> >> > > On a slightly related note, is there any overhead associated with >> >> > > adding custom validation methods specific to some field only to >> >> > > override the default message? Take the following: >> >> >> > > jQuery.validator.addMethod("visible-required", function(value, >> >> > > element) { >> >> > > return $(element).is(":hidden") || !this.optional(element); >> >> > > }, "This is required when visible"); >> >> >> > > jQuery.validator.addMethod("visible-required-fool", >> >> > > jQuery.validator.methods.visible - required, >> >> > > "My specific field is required"); >> >> >> > > I saw your talk at the conference last weekend btw. Thanks
