Forgive my ignorance, but why would it be a problem not to have these?
On 5/26/05, Philipp Hanes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The following ideas are options I would _not_ like > > to follow if possible: > > - set a default checkbox or redio button (so something is > > always filled in). > > - use a hidden field to list of all the fields in the form. > > - have the perl script read the HTML code from the page and > > make its own list. > > - javascript > > > > I kinda understand why the browser doesn't send this > > information (no value > > to hold onto), but there HAS to be a solution for this. > > Seems frightfully > > stupid not to have an easy option out there for something like this. > > No solution other than the ones you mentioned, that I'm aware of. > What we've done is generally a hidden field that gets fiddled with via > JavaScript when the checkbox is changed. Then the back-end code just looks > at the hidden field, and can be totally oblivious to what's really going on > in the HTML. > Yup, seems stupid to me, each time I run into it again, too. > I'd be curious if someone has come up with something better. > Doubtful, though. > good luck philipp > > _______________________________________________ > Boston-pm mailing list > Boston-pm@mail.pm.org > http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm > _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
