On Jan 24, 2010, at 11:05 AM, mdipierro wrote:
> That's a good point.
>
> I also think the IS_SLUG should not do validation, just filtering. Or
> perhaps have an option to
The patch I sent is filtering-only, sort of a super IS_LOWER().
The main use for it in a form, I think, is to combine IS_SL
I agree with pistacchio.
agree with you massimo on IS_SLUG for filtering only, if you want to
validate use IS_ALPHANUMERIC.
-Thadeus
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:53 AM, mdipierro wrote:
>
>> I do not know about this. What do other people
On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:53 AM, mdipierro wrote:
> I do not know about this. What do other people think?
> I do not have a strong opinion either way.
I think that slug is a fairly common term. WordPress uses it, for example.
And if we make it a validator (I'm about to submit a patch), it definitely
On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:14 AM, mdipierro wrote:
> Since you are at it. We may want to consider a IS_SLUG validator and
> make the function a staticmethod of IS_SLUG (instead of a function in
> contrib) so it can be called without any import from contrib.
OK.
>
> On Jan 24, 11:12 am, mdipierro wr
On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:30 AM, mdipierro wrote:
> I will take a patch. ;-)
I'll contribute one. Any objection to changing the name to "slugify", since
it's not really urlifying its input?
>
> On Jan 23, 7:03 pm, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>> urlify needs a comment to say explicitly what its intent
5 matches
Mail list logo
