From: "Brian Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I agree. I'd specify this by saying: > > o An empty string sent from a browser for an optional_date > field is interpreted as a null (not specified) value > > o The "internal" representation of an optional_date (the > value you find in the REQUEST after conversion) is > always either a valid DateTime instance or None
I think then the value in the fields will be shown as "None", which I don't particularily like, even though I would rather have None as the internal representation instead of an empty string. Is there a way to fix that, so that date_fields set to None will be displayed as empty? > I don't have much to add to that thread. It has the same > backward-compatibility issue, but I don't perceive it to > be as big an issue as the date thing (probably because > it can be dealt with in a single line from DTML or Python). True, it can wait. We probably need to discuss how all of this should be handled in Zope 3 at some time, because it is a bit confusing today (thanks mostly to the m*r*ns that made the HTML forms specification), and it easy to mix up optional, empty and non-existent. :-) But thats another discussion. _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
