gotcha, figured that out after my last post.
I actually got here from your last comment on "http://bassistance.de/
jquery-plugins/jquery-plugin-validation/". I will make note to use
(validate) instead.
On Sep 15, 12:47 pm, Jörn Zaefferer <joern.zaeffe...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> I actually changed the plugin page to ask for "(validate)". When you
> use Google Groups in an email client, the subject is displayed just
> fined, while the Web interface removes the prefix.
>
> Jörn
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Dr Stevens <daverstev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the spam, fixing the subject
>
> > On Sep 15, 12:39 pm, Dr Stevens <daverstev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks for your help. You always seem to be very quick to respond and
> >> I, along with everyone else I'm sure, am very appreciative.
>
> >> Great plugin!
>
> >> On Sep 15, 12:35 pm, Jörn Zaefferer <joern.zaeffe...@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > You shouldn't use "visible-required" as the method name. Stick with a
> >> > valid JavaScript identifier (probably should have mentioned that).
>
> >> > As long as you do that, you can use addMethod to alias existing
> >> > methods with other default messages. On the other hand, addClassRules
> >> > doesn't help at all with messages.
>
> >> > Jörn
>
> >> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Dr Stevens <daverstev...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > I'm using the validate plugin to validate ASP.NET webforms on the
> >> > > client (I'd prefer to not use webforms, but for now I'm stuck with
> >> > > it). Because I'm using webforms, I'm trying to get around using the
> >> > > clientID of server controls. The metadata plugin works great, but I'd
> >> > > prefer to not use it because it's gonna blow up my markup.
>
> >> > > Is there any way to utilize jQuery.validator.addClassRules to add
> >> > > custom messages to a rule? Take the following for instance:
>
> >> > > jQuery.validator.addMethod("visible-required", function(value,
> >> > > element) {
> >> > > return $(element).is(":hidden") || !this.optional(element);
> >> > > }, "This is required when visible");
>
> >> > > jQuery.validator.addClassRules("fool", {
> >> > > visible-required: true,
> >> > > lettersonly: true,
> >> > > messages: {
> >> > > visible-required: "My specific field must is required",
> >> > > lettersonly: "Letters only fool!"
> >> > > }
> >> > > });
>
> >> > > On a slightly related note, is there any overhead associated with
> >> > > adding custom validation methods specific to some field only to
> >> > > override the default message? Take the following:
>
> >> > > jQuery.validator.addMethod("visible-required", function(value,
> >> > > element) {
> >> > > return $(element).is(":hidden") || !this.optional(element);
> >> > > }, "This is required when visible");
>
> >> > > jQuery.validator.addMethod("visible-required-fool",
> >> > > jQuery.validator.methods.visible - required,
> >> > > "My specific field is required");
>
> >> > > I saw your talk at the conference last weekend btw. Thanks
