On 4/19/06, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It'd be OK to have a convenience tag - like - for > > using a new custom commons-validator, without any attributes at all > > other than "type". There's no good reason to cram all the pre-existing > > validators into one tag. They should be in separate tags. > > That's not a bad idea.
I'm not sure about this, but doesn't this describe the existing Tomahawk validators (creditCard, email, regExp)? Hubert
