that can be accomplished using a validator. -igor
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Pennington <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 1. The current approach is correct, requiring a checkbox means >> requiring that it be checked. >> >> 2. A checkbox shouldn't be able to be required. You can't *not* >> provide a value (it's binary) for a checkbox, so therefore it always >> should satisfy the required requirement. > > (1) > > I can't think of any useful benefit to (2) but I *can* think of a very > useful benefit for (1) The classic "tick this box to indicate that you have > read and agreed to sell us your soul EULA would be the obvious time to use > a checkbox and setRequired(true) if it worked as per (1). > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
