[jQuery] Re: Email validation broken in plugin v1.2?!

2008-02-05 Thread Jörn Zaefferer 


Seth - TA schrieb:

Jörn -

Thanks for doing that. Is 1.2.1 out? I saw in the trunk that the
validate.js says 1.2.1pre. Is it usable? Thanks.
  
Yes, it is usable. Unless I get more bug reports I'll release that in 
one or two days.


Let me know if you spot a problem, I should be able to fix it in a few 
hours.


Jörn

[jQuery] Re: Email validation broken in plugin v1.2?!

2008-02-05 Thread Yuval 

Hey Jörn - Thank you for fixing this is the next release. I have just
submitted a bug report.
Please see message: [validate] validator.pendingRequest below 0
(function stopRequest is called when not needed resulting in
pendingRequest becoming less than 0) - also submitted a solution.
Yuval Karmi

On Feb 5, 2:06 pm, Jörn Zaefferer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Seth - TA schrieb: Jörn -

  Thanks for doing that. Is 1.2.1 out? I saw in the trunk that the
  validate.js says 1.2.1pre. Is it usable? Thanks.

 Yes, it is usable. Unless I get more bug reports I'll release that in
 one or two days.

 Let me know if you spot a problem, I should be able to fix it in a few
 hours.

 Jörn

[jQuery] Re: Email validation broken in plugin v1.2?!

2008-02-04 Thread Seth - TA 

Jörn -

Thanks for doing that. Is 1.2.1 out? I saw in the trunk that the
validate.js says 1.2.1pre. Is it usable? Thanks.

Seth

On Jan 31, 6:27 pm, Jörn Zaefferer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Scott González schrieb: Please, don't do that.  The modified regex you 
 provided is way over
  simplified.  I'll try to produce the regex you want, it should be as
  easy as making the domain label required in the host name.

 1.2.1 will includeemailvalidation that requires the tld, providing the
 current implementation via additional methods. Same goes for the url
 validation.

 Jörn

[jQuery] Re: Email validation broken in plugin v1.2?!

2008-01-31 Thread Scott González 

Please, don't do that.  The modified regex you provided is way over
simplified.  I'll try to produce the regex you want, it should be as
easy as making the domain label required in the host name.


On Jan 30, 7:43 pm, Rus Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I agree, [EMAIL PROTECTED] isn't likely to be used anytime soon in a real-
 world situation.

 I've hacked the plugin on line 865 from:

 return this.optional(element) || /^((([a-z]|\d|[!#\$%'\*\+\-\/=\?
 \^_`{\|}~]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])+(\.([a-z]|\d|[!#\
 $%'\*\+\-\/=\?\^_`{\|}~]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])
 +)*)|((\x22)\x20|\x09)*(\x0d\x0a))?(\x20|\x09)+)?(([\x01-\x08\x0b
 \x0c\x0e-\x1f\x7f]|\x21|[\x23-\x5b]|[\x5d-\x7e]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-
 \uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(\\([\x01-\x09\x0b\x0c\x0d-\x7f]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF
 \uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF]*(((\x20|\x09)*(\x0d\x0a))?(\x20|
 \x09)+)?(\x22)))@((([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-
 \uFFEF])|(([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])([a-z]|
 \d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])*([a-z]|\d|
 [\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.)*(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF
 \uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-
 \uFFEF])([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-
 \uFFEF])*([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.?$/
 i.test(value);

 to:

 return this.optional(element) || /^[_a-z0-9-]+(\.[_a-z0-9-]+)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 z0-9-]+(\.[a-z0-9-]+)*(\.[a-z]{2,3})$/i.test(value);

 This seems to work for me.  Please test and let me know.

 On Jan 30, 4:55 pm, Seth - TA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Is there a way to change that? Or, what part of the email regex could
  I modify? I would think that most people would agree with me that
  @localhost wouldn't really be a valid email for production use. If I
  am wrong, then tell me, however, could you point me in the right
  direction to not allow a valid email without a .com, .net, etc, etc.
  Thanks.

  Regards,

  Seth

  On Jan 28, 3:10 pm, Jörn Zaefferer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   Yuval schrieb: Thisemail
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
validates perfectly on v1.2. No .com nothing...
Is it broken or is it done on purpose?
I tried it on my site AND on the remember-the-milk demo...

   Nope. Its perfectly valid, just as something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] is 
   valid.

   Jörn

[jQuery] Re: Email validation broken in plugin v1.2?!

2008-01-31 Thread Jörn Zaefferer 


Scott González schrieb:

Please, don't do that.  The modified regex you provided is way over
simplified.  I'll try to produce the regex you want, it should be as
easy as making the domain label required in the host name.
  
1.2.1 will include email validation that requires the tld, providing the 
current implementation via additional methods. Same goes for the url 
validation.


Jörn

[jQuery] Re: Email validation broken in plugin v1.2?!

2008-01-30 Thread Rus Miller 

I agree, [EMAIL PROTECTED] isn't likely to be used anytime soon in a real-
world situation.

I've hacked the plugin on line 865 from:

return this.optional(element) || /^((([a-z]|\d|[!#\$%'\*\+\-\/=\?
\^_`{\|}~]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])+(\.([a-z]|\d|[!#\
$%'\*\+\-\/=\?\^_`{\|}~]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])
+)*)|((\x22)\x20|\x09)*(\x0d\x0a))?(\x20|\x09)+)?(([\x01-\x08\x0b
\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x7f]|\x21|[\x23-\x5b]|[\x5d-\x7e]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-
\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(\\([\x01-\x09\x0b\x0c\x0d-\x7f]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF
\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF]*(((\x20|\x09)*(\x0d\x0a))?(\x20|
\x09)+)?(\x22)))@((([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-
\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])([a-z]|
\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])*([a-z]|\d|
[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.)*(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF
\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-
\uFFEF])([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-
\uFFEF])*([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.?$/
i.test(value);

to:

return this.optional(element) || /^[_a-z0-9-]+(\.[_a-z0-9-]+)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
z0-9-]+(\.[a-z0-9-]+)*(\.[a-z]{2,3})$/i.test(value);

This seems to work for me.  Please test and let me know.

On Jan 30, 4:55 pm, Seth - TA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Is there a way to change that? Or, what part of the email regex could
 I modify? I would think that most people would agree with me that
 @localhost wouldn't really be a valid email for production use. If I
 am wrong, then tell me, however, could you point me in the right
 direction to not allow a valid email without a .com, .net, etc, etc.
 Thanks.

 Regards,

 Seth

 On Jan 28, 3:10 pm, Jörn Zaefferer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Yuval schrieb: Thisemail
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   validates perfectly on v1.2. No .com nothing...
   Is it broken or is it done on purpose?
   I tried it on my site AND on the remember-the-milk demo...

  Nope. Its perfectly valid, just as something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] is 
  valid.

  Jörn

[jQuery] Re: Email validation broken in plugin v1.2?!

2008-01-28 Thread Rus Miller 

I noticed this issue too.

On Jan 28, 2:15 pm, Yuval [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This email
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 validates perfectly on v1.2. No .com nothing...
 Is it broken or is it done on purpose?
 I tried it on my site AND on the remember-the-milk demo...