um those is a little bit of an issue you you need you code to me valid. For example required in not a valid attribute for an input so adding these webform attribute will make my code invalid.
Jörn Zaefferer wrote: > > > Eridius schrieb: >> Another thing is there a reason why the class name are very generic? >> This is >> just an issue because a lot of those names are already used for other >> stuff >> and is interfering with the current css. is there a reason you did not >> use >> something like validate_required, validate_email, etc...? it not a big >> deal, just whenever you upgrade the plug-in I will need to change all >> those >> names again, no big deal, just annoying. >> > They are designed to match the style used by the webforms specification. > There you have min and max attributes to validate values, with 1.2 you > can use exactly the same style. Once webform gets implemented by > browsers you could just check if that is available and let the browser > handle the validation, without having to change your markup from some > "proprietary" stuff to the standard. > > You could also switch to a different validatin plugin, if that uses the > same generic names instead of implementation specific ones. > > Of course there is a cost to pay as you describe, but I hope thats worth > it. After all, you don't have to use classes/attributes, metadata and > plugin options are still an option. > > Jörn > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/jQuert-Validate-1.2-issues-tp15231991s27240p15237333.html Sent from the jQuery General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
