#the-required-attribute
MG>enabling "HTML5 compliance" justifies the effort
MG>+1
> From: lukaszlen...@apache.org
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:18:27 +0200
> Subject: Re: Proposal: "required" attribute changes (related to WW-4188)
> To: dev@struts.apache.org
>
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 propose that we revert the changes made i
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" back into "required." Then, t
Nope, it's just the asterisk. Backend validation is handled in the action's
validate method or validation XML.
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013, struts wrote:
> I see -- I was under the mistaken impression that "requiredLabel" before
> 2.3.12 defined -- at the field level -- which character would
I see -- I was under the mistaken impression that "requiredLabel" before
2.3.12 defined -- at the field level -- which character would be used to
indicate that a field is required. Similar to how "labelSeparator" works.
I see now that the character used is hard-coded to an asterisk, and that
"re
Okay thank you for the clarification. I had changed my copy of
themes/simple/text.ftl to add the html5 attribute in the case when
"required=true" was set. This continues to work fine for me when I set
"requiredLabel=true" -- so in my case it does have an additional
(beneficial) side effect, in t
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 that to trigger
re
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" back into "required." Then, t
