We kind of broke it already. Currently it looks broken in either way to me.
I think we should try for the best possible fix that has clear semantics
and an "easy-enough" migration path.
I'd also suggest to discuss this further in the mentioned JIRA ticket to
have a straight issue history.
- René
I'd rather break everything at once. That's how I feel about it. I don't
want to keep on telling users migration plans from 2.3 to 2.5 and 2.5 to 3.0
Cheers,
Paul
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Lukasz Lenart
wrote:
> 2014-11-07 15:56 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict :
> > I keep telling Lukasz we need
2014-11-07 15:56 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict :
> I keep telling Lukasz we need to build 3.0 -- but he hasn't taken my advice
> yet :-)
We can skip 2.5 if you think that's better - but we will have a lot of
changes at once
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
---
I keep telling Lukasz we need to build 3.0 -- but he hasn't taken my advice
yet :-)
Cheers,
Paul
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Dave Newton wrote:
> I'd vote for following HTML5 as closely as possible.
>
> I'm okay with a backwards-incompatible change for the next large-ish
> release.
>
>
>
>
I'd vote for following HTML5 as closely as possible.
I'm okay with a backwards-incompatible change for the next large-ish release.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Lukasz Lenart wrote:
> 2014-11-07 6:15 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict :
>> I noticed our free marker templates are outputting required="t
2014-11-07 6:15 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict :
> I noticed our free marker templates are outputting required="true" into the
> HTML fields. This is invalid HTML. It needs to be required (name with no
> value) or required="required" for XHTML.
Here is discussion about that
https://issues.apache.org/jira
I noticed our free marker templates are outputting required="true" into the
HTML fields. This is invalid HTML. It needs to be required (name with no
value) or required="required" for XHTML.
Cheers,
Paul
MG>radiobuttons are tricky
MG>if any of the radio buttons with type="radio" contain the required attribute
MG>then all of elements with type="radio" (the radiogroup collection) are
considered to be 'required'
MG>http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/forms.html
Duplication or do you want to start that over?
2013/9/11 rgm :
> So as not to pollute the JIRAs too much with speculation or suggestions
> that haven't been thought out, I'd like to have a discussion about the
> "required" attribute here on the list.
>
> I prop
Ok, as I'm a bit lost - what's the solution then? Leave it as is or
change to something else?
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
For addition
So as not to pollute the JIRAs too much with speculation or suggestions
that haven't been thought out, I'd like to have a discussion about the
"required" attribute here on the list.
I propose that we revert the changes made in WW-3908, namely -- turn
"requiredLabel"
e", you consider that to
> trigger
> > requiredLabel="true". At least that way you are driving the label off the
> > client validation, rather than the other way around.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM, struts >
> wrote
y updated to requiredLabel, so I vote we stick with that. :)
>
> Besides, requiredLabel actually makes more sense, since that's all it does.
> You could invert the logic you proposed so that if a required attribute is
> detected with a value of anything but "false", you con
ial) side effect, in that my theme applies the required="required"
attribute.
I've given up on possible reversion of the WW-3908 change and changed all
of my templates. It wasn't too hard.
The only developer-list appropriate aspect of this issue is that treating
"required
I already updated to requiredLabel, so I vote we stick with that. :)
Besides, requiredLabel actually makes more sense, since that's all it does.
You could invert the logic you proposed so that if a required attribute is
detected with a value of anything but "false", you consider
So as not to pollute the JIRAs too much with speculation or suggestions
that haven't been thought out, I'd like to have a discussion about the
"required" attribute here on the list.
I propose that we revert the changes made in WW-3908, namely -- turn
"requiredLabel"
16 matches
Mail list logo
