On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:02 -0400, Michael Day wrote:
> I only glanced quickly at the larger expression, but it seems to
> allow for quite a bit that you would NOT want. I think it's more
> geared toward mail servers. For example, I think it will evaluate
> the following as a valid email address (possibly with random tabs and
> spaces throughout): <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Below are some (according to the RFC) valid email adresses. I think the
ones to notice is the ones with a space in 'em.
VALID_EMAIL1.setAddress("[EMAIL PROTECTED]");
VALID_EMAIL2.setAddress("[EMAIL PROTECTED]");
VALID_EMAIL3.setAddress("[EMAIL PROTECTED]");
VALID_EMAIL4.setAddress("[EMAIL PROTECTED]");
VALID_EMAIL5.setAddress("[EMAIL PROTECTED]");
VALID_EMAIL6.setAddress("my @email.com");
VALID_EMAIL7.setAddress("my@ email.com");
VALID_EMAIL8.setAddress("\"Ulrik Jensen\"@email.com");
> Is this what most people want? Probably not. I would prefer to
> ensure the email address is in a format like this: [EMAIL PROTECTED] And
> I think the smaller expression will validate emails in this format
> just fine.
I agree. If Wicket used the RFC correct validation pattern and
developers forgot to check whether there mailing systems actually were
able to handle such email addresses they would probably be quite
frustrated.
How about having a RfcCompliantEmailAddressPatternValidator living next
to the normal EmailAddressPatternValidator? Then developers would only
pick the RFC compliant version if they actually needed it. Just a
thought.
Regards
Frank Bille
Avaleo
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
