No problem. The interesting thing is that the more you comply with the RFC, the more likely you are to allow someone to accidentally enter an incorrect email address. The webforms plugin addresses this by following the spec as closely as possible and just ensuring that the form of the address is valid. The validation plugin addresses this by reviewing all user requests/complaints and making adjustments based on actual and expected results. So while the validation plugin will be more strict (disallowing certain valid email addresses), it is extremely unlikely that any public email addresses actually in use will fail validation with the default email method.
On Jun 26, 10:50 am, AstroIvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sounds great Scott. First my apologies, as it seems my post was a > little pre-emptive. The specific case I got in a bug report was that > + signs were not being allowed by the client validation. This is > incorrect as I've double tested it after looking at your test cases, > and it looks like you guys are already taking care of it > appropriately; it was our server-side validation that was incorrectly > catching it. > > Also, since my post I've found that the javascript function I've > referenced is actually incorrect as well, as it doesn't check for more > than one at sign outside of quotations. > > Ultimately we're trying to stay as close as possible to the rfc > definition as our site expects some visibility on our registration > project. > > Thanks both of you for responding so quickly! > > On Jun 26, 7:46 am, Scott González <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As Jörn has stated, we have intentionally gone against the RFC a bit > > to go for a more practical approach. The original regex was written > > to the spec (as much as possible). I seem to recall that while I was > > writing the regex I thought it was actually impossible to follow the > > spec because I had to reference several RFCs and there were > > contradictions. In fact, even the W3C doesn't recommend following the > > spec (the HTML 5 spec gives specific modifications to make for > > validation). > > > In a month or two, I will be writing scripts to produce custom regexes > > for IRI and email validation, so that should cover whatever your needs > > are. At the same time I will be updating the regexes in the webforms > > plugin, which will follow the HTML 5 rules exactly (they're pretty > > close right now - closer than what we use in the validation plugin). > > > Feel free to contact me directly if you'd like more information on > > this. > > > On Jun 25, 11:11 am, AstroIvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Looks like the default email validation isn't of the correct version. > > > My team is going with this as a custom validator, but the validate > > > plugin might want to update > > > >http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/JavaScript/Best_Practices-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
