16 Replies Latest reply on Aug 21, 2006 6:48 AM by Newsgroup_User

    maxlength behaviour

    Level 7
      <textarea name="textarea" cols="50" rows="5" maxlength="5"></textarea>

      How come the textarea tag does not allow the use of 'maxlength' fo rmulti
      line? If this
      restriction can be applied to text fields, why not to multi line text
      fields?

      We had to create a small javascript to detect when a user entered
      too much text into a comments field - not sure why we had to do this when
      this provision could very easily have been catered for in the same way as
      single line text fields.

      For them to make a conscious decision to disallow this there must have been
      some reason - very curious to know what this is? Surely it would not hurt to
      have this feature, but could potentially hurt not to,right?

      Thanks.






        • 1. Re: maxlength behaviour
          Level 7
          > How come the textarea tag does not allow the use of 'maxlength' fo rmulti
          > line?

          You would have to ask the W3C this question.

          > If this
          > restriction can be applied to text fields, why not to multi line text
          > fields?

          A textarea is generally used for free-form input, and in that context,
          maxlength makes no sense.

          Your application is an unusual one. I guess you found the right solution.

          --
          Murray --- ICQ 71997575
          Adobe Community Expert
          (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
          ==================
          http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
          http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
          http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
          http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
          ==================


          "Eric" <ericp@citadelip.net> wrote in message
          news:ec0np9$lqq$2@forums.macromedia.com...
          > <textarea name="textarea" cols="50" rows="5" maxlength="5"></textarea>
          >
          > How come the textarea tag does not allow the use of 'maxlength' fo rmulti
          > line? If this
          > restriction can be applied to text fields, why not to multi line text
          > fields?
          >
          > We had to create a small javascript to detect when a user entered
          > too much text into a comments field - not sure why we had to do this when
          > this provision could very easily have been catered for in the same way as
          > single line text fields.
          >
          > For them to make a conscious decision to disallow this there must have
          > been
          > some reason - very curious to know what this is? Surely it would not hurt
          > to
          > have this feature, but could potentially hurt not to,right?
          >
          > Thanks.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >


          • 2. Re: maxlength behaviour
            Level 7
            >A textarea is generally used for free-form input, and in that context,
            maxlength makes no sense.

            Maxlength makes every bit of sense in this context - does data in free form
            text areas not go into database columns? In such cases max length could be
            set to a very high postive number or simply set to 'unlimited'. The point is
            that the developer makes the decision - not the w3c. How could they possibly
            anticipate all use cases for text areas and stranger still, how could they
            not see this very basic matching of text area data to databases with defined
            datatypes?

            I wouldn't mind finding out if this was something they intend to fix or
            something they do not consider to be broken - might sniff around a bit at
            w3c.org for that one.

            Anyway, just venting some pent up "what the hell were they thinking" issues
            I am currently experiencing. Thanks for for your feedback.



            "Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
            news:ec1mqd$qma$1@forums.macromedia.com...
            > > How come the textarea tag does not allow the use of 'maxlength' fo
            rmulti
            > > line?
            >
            > You would have to ask the W3C this question.
            >
            > > If this
            > > restriction can be applied to text fields, why not to multi line text
            > > fields?
            >
            > A textarea is generally used for free-form input, and in that context,
            > maxlength makes no sense.
            >
            > Your application is an unusual one. I guess you found the right solution.
            >
            > --
            > Murray --- ICQ 71997575
            > Adobe Community Expert
            > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
            > ==================
            > http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
            > http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
            > http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
            > http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
            > ==================
            >
            >
            > "Eric" <ericp@citadelip.net> wrote in message
            > news:ec0np9$lqq$2@forums.macromedia.com...
            > > <textarea name="textarea" cols="50" rows="5" maxlength="5"></textarea>
            > >
            > > How come the textarea tag does not allow the use of 'maxlength' fo
            rmulti
            > > line? If this
            > > restriction can be applied to text fields, why not to multi line text
            > > fields?
            > >
            > > We had to create a small javascript to detect when a user entered
            > > too much text into a comments field - not sure why we had to do this
            when
            > > this provision could very easily have been catered for in the same way
            as
            > > single line text fields.
            > >
            > > For them to make a conscious decision to disallow this there must have
            > > been
            > > some reason - very curious to know what this is? Surely it would not
            hurt
            > > to
            > > have this feature, but could potentially hurt not to,right?
            > >
            > > Thanks.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >


            • 3. Re: maxlength behaviour
              Level 7
              > I wouldn't mind finding out if this was something they intend to fix or
              > something they do not consider to be broken

              I doubt that they consider it broken.

              --
              Murray --- ICQ 71997575
              Adobe Community Expert
              (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
              ==================
              http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
              http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
              http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
              http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
              ==================


              "michael phillips" <m.phillips@centrelink.gov.au> wrote in message
              news:ec314d$hpj$1@forums.macromedia.com...
              > >A textarea is generally used for free-form input, and in that context,
              > maxlength makes no sense.
              >
              > Maxlength makes every bit of sense in this context - does data in free
              > form
              > text areas not go into database columns? In such cases max length could be
              > set to a very high postive number or simply set to 'unlimited'. The point
              > is
              > that the developer makes the decision - not the w3c. How could they
              > possibly
              > anticipate all use cases for text areas and stranger still, how could they
              > not see this very basic matching of text area data to databases with
              > defined
              > datatypes?
              >
              > I wouldn't mind finding out if this was something they intend to fix or
              > something they do not consider to be broken - might sniff around a bit at
              > w3c.org for that one.
              >
              > Anyway, just venting some pent up "what the hell were they thinking"
              > issues
              > I am currently experiencing. Thanks for for your feedback.
              >
              >
              >
              > "Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
              > news:ec1mqd$qma$1@forums.macromedia.com...
              >> > How come the textarea tag does not allow the use of 'maxlength' fo
              > rmulti
              >> > line?
              >>
              >> You would have to ask the W3C this question.
              >>
              >> > If this
              >> > restriction can be applied to text fields, why not to multi line text
              >> > fields?
              >>
              >> A textarea is generally used for free-form input, and in that context,
              >> maxlength makes no sense.
              >>
              >> Your application is an unusual one. I guess you found the right
              >> solution.
              >>
              >> --
              >> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
              >> Adobe Community Expert
              >> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
              >> ==================
              >> http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
              >> http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
              >> http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
              >> http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
              >> ==================
              >>
              >>
              >> "Eric" <ericp@citadelip.net> wrote in message
              >> news:ec0np9$lqq$2@forums.macromedia.com...
              >> > <textarea name="textarea" cols="50" rows="5" maxlength="5"></textarea>
              >> >
              >> > How come the textarea tag does not allow the use of 'maxlength' fo
              > rmulti
              >> > line? If this
              >> > restriction can be applied to text fields, why not to multi line text
              >> > fields?
              >> >
              >> > We had to create a small javascript to detect when a user entered
              >> > too much text into a comments field - not sure why we had to do this
              > when
              >> > this provision could very easily have been catered for in the same way
              > as
              >> > single line text fields.
              >> >
              >> > For them to make a conscious decision to disallow this there must have
              >> > been
              >> > some reason - very curious to know what this is? Surely it would not
              > hurt
              >> > to
              >> > have this feature, but could potentially hurt not to,right?
              >> >
              >> > Thanks.
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >>
              >>
              >
              >


              • 4. Re: maxlength behaviour
                Level 7
                > I doubt that they consider it broken.

                I am sure you are right. To be honest, I am also of the opinion that a
                simple maxLength attribute was inadequate as validation tool at the html
                level. Why not add a 'dataType' attribute to check for number, char, regEx
                adn so on. I know that JavaScript can do all this but such a basic and
                frequently occuring thing could easily have been added to specs and
                implement by browser vendors.


                "Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
                news:ec350i$ltq$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                > > I wouldn't mind finding out if this was something they intend to fix or
                > > something they do not consider to be broken
                >
                > I doubt that they consider it broken.
                >
                > --
                > Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                > Adobe Community Expert
                > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                > ==================
                > http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                > http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                > http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                > http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                > ==================
                >
                >
                > "michael phillips" <m.phillips@centrelink.gov.au> wrote in message
                > news:ec314d$hpj$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                > > >A textarea is generally used for free-form input, and in that context,
                > > maxlength makes no sense.
                > >
                > > Maxlength makes every bit of sense in this context - does data in free
                > > form
                > > text areas not go into database columns? In such cases max length could
                be
                > > set to a very high postive number or simply set to 'unlimited'. The
                point
                > > is
                > > that the developer makes the decision - not the w3c. How could they
                > > possibly
                > > anticipate all use cases for text areas and stranger still, how could
                they
                > > not see this very basic matching of text area data to databases with
                > > defined
                > > datatypes?
                > >
                > > I wouldn't mind finding out if this was something they intend to fix or
                > > something they do not consider to be broken - might sniff around a bit
                at
                > > w3c.org for that one.
                > >
                > > Anyway, just venting some pent up "what the hell were they thinking"
                > > issues
                > > I am currently experiencing. Thanks for for your feedback.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > "Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
                > > news:ec1mqd$qma$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                > >> > How come the textarea tag does not allow the use of 'maxlength' fo
                > > rmulti
                > >> > line?
                > >>
                > >> You would have to ask the W3C this question.
                > >>
                > >> > If this
                > >> > restriction can be applied to text fields, why not to multi line text
                > >> > fields?
                > >>
                > >> A textarea is generally used for free-form input, and in that context,
                > >> maxlength makes no sense.
                > >>
                > >> Your application is an unusual one. I guess you found the right
                > >> solution.
                > >>
                > >> --
                > >> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                > >> Adobe Community Expert
                > >> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                > >> ==================
                > >> http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                > >> http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                > >> http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                > >> http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                > >> ==================
                > >>
                > >>
                > >> "Eric" <ericp@citadelip.net> wrote in message
                > >> news:ec0np9$lqq$2@forums.macromedia.com...
                > >> > <textarea name="textarea" cols="50" rows="5"
                maxlength="5"></textarea>
                > >> >
                > >> > How come the textarea tag does not allow the use of 'maxlength' fo
                > > rmulti
                > >> > line? If this
                > >> > restriction can be applied to text fields, why not to multi line text
                > >> > fields?
                > >> >
                > >> > We had to create a small javascript to detect when a user entered
                > >> > too much text into a comments field - not sure why we had to do this
                > > when
                > >> > this provision could very easily have been catered for in the same
                way
                > > as
                > >> > single line text fields.
                > >> >
                > >> > For them to make a conscious decision to disallow this there must
                have
                > >> > been
                > >> > some reason - very curious to know what this is? Surely it would not
                > > hurt
                > >> > to
                > >> > have this feature, but could potentially hurt not to,right?
                > >> >
                > >> > Thanks.
                > >> >
                > >> >
                > >> >
                > >> >
                > >> >
                > >> >
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                >
                >


                • 5. Re: maxlength behaviour
                  Level 7
                  was inadequate as validation tool at the html
                  > level. Why not add a 'dataType' attribute to check for number, char, regEx
                  > adn so on.

                  the validation should be done server side.

                  a form element having an html attribute isn't of any value, because there
                  will be browsers that don't support the attribute, not to mention all of the
                  user agents (including malicious bots) that will ignore that type of
                  attribute.

                  • 6. Re: maxlength behaviour
                    Level 7
                    > the validation should be done server side.

                    sure, it almost always is done server side. Thats not what the poster was
                    saying.

                    > a form element having an html attribute isn't of any value, because there
                    > will be browsers that don't support the attribute, not to mention all of
                    the
                    > user agents (including malicious bots) that will ignore that type of
                    > attribute.

                    With that logic, we should forget using javascript too?

                    The point is that the deevloper can make the choice.

                    >> a form element having an html attribute isn't of any value, because there
                    will be browsers that don't support the attribute

                    Strange response. using you logic, again, the W3C would never have
                    introduced the <div> tag becuase there were no browsers that supported it.
                    It doesn't work that way.

                    I also think it would be perfectly reasonable to have some basic validation
                    options vailable at the html form level - they are closely enough related
                    and frequently enough needed. Why offer one validation tool (maxlength) but
                    then draw the line right there? Offer none or offer a selection I say.






                    "Alan" <dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                    news:C10A9740.2A0C42%dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com...
                    > was inadequate as validation tool at the html
                    > > level. Why not add a 'dataType' attribute to check for number, char,
                    regEx
                    > > adn so on.
                    >
                    > the validation should be done server side.
                    >
                    > a form element having an html attribute isn't of any value, because there
                    > will be browsers that don't support the attribute, not to mention all of
                    the
                    > user agents (including malicious bots) that will ignore that type of
                    > attribute.
                    >


                    • 7. Re: maxlength behaviour
                      Level 7
                      On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:17:48 +0800, "RonOnTop" <ron123T@hotmail.com>
                      wrote:

                      >Offer none or offer a selection I say.

                      Complaining about it here will do no good. Perhaps here would be a good
                      place to start: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/join

                      Gary
                      • 8. Re: maxlength behaviour
                        Level 7
                        I for one will be joining - I want my other issue addressed. I think
                        hypertext is all one word, not two ('hyper' 'text') so therefore the
                        language should be HML/XHML. I find this rather disturbing anomaly greatly
                        reduces what can be acheived with the language.



                        "Gary White" <reply@newsgroup.please> wrote in message
                        news:8ijae2pqcrc579kg7h291fvjprbd9vudjd@4ax.com...
                        > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:17:48 +0800, "RonOnTop" <ron123T@hotmail.com>
                        > wrote:
                        >
                        > >Offer none or offer a selection I say.
                        >
                        > Complaining about it here will do no good. Perhaps here would be a good
                        > place to start: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/join
                        >
                        > Gary


                        • 9. Re: maxlength behaviour
                          Level 7
                          Third edit of what i want to say.

                          do you understand the things you are working with?

                          Why ask for a standard for client side validation when it simply won't work
                          because there will be user agents that will ignore it?

                          • 10. Re: maxlength behaviour
                            Level 7
                            >Why ask for a standard for client side validation when it simply won't work
                            because there will be user agents that will ignore it?

                            Are you serious? Of course there will be user agents that will ignore it!
                            Just as there are user agent that will ignore javascript based validation,
                            or user agents that will ignore ANY newly introduced tag or attribute. Even
                            user agents tha will ignore well established tags and attributes. That is
                            the whole point, that there is no support for it and we think there should
                            be.

                            > do you understand the things you are working with?

                            Do you? You seem to think that an tag or attribute that does not exist must
                            be a waste of time becuase there is currently no support for it. Luckily for
                            us all, the w3c think very diffrently than you and are very much of the
                            opinion that they can (and do) introduce new tags and attributes. And,
                            surprise surprise, vendors can add support in their next browser releases.




                            "Alan" <dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                            news:C10ADA75.2A0C73%dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com...
                            > Third edit of what i want to say.
                            >
                            > do you understand the things you are working with?
                            >
                            > Why ask for a standard for client side validation when it simply won't
                            work
                            > because there will be user agents that will ignore it?
                            >


                            • 11. Re: maxlength behaviour
                              Level 7


                              >> Why ask for a standard for client side validation when it simply won't work
                              >> because there will be user agents that will ignore it?
                              >
                              > Are you serious? Of course there will be user agents that will ignore it!
                              > Just as there are user agent that will ignore javascript based validation,
                              > or user agents that will ignore ANY newly introduced tag or attribute. Even
                              > user agents tha will ignore well established tags and attributes. That is
                              > the whole point, that there is no support for it and we think there should
                              > be.


                              Yes- I am serious. Because the intent of your proposed tag attribute is that
                              it's used for client side validation. And if introduced, it would be used
                              for validation of form data. And relied on by some as the only validation of
                              the form data.

                              It won't work in all user agents, so it simply won't work. Even if it's
                              eventually adopted into 100% of web browsers- it could be easily bypassed at
                              will. It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.

                              • 12. Re: maxlength behaviour
                                Level 7
                                rE: It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.

                                Can I just say as politely as possible, that you do not really know what you
                                are talking aout. Not only is it not 'wrong-headed' it is also totally
                                advisable that you do validation client side, and then you do it server side
                                also. You do it client side to save the form from having to submit to the
                                server only to recieve back a validation message from server side code. The
                                client side validation will work, and speed up the process in most cases. In
                                the cases where it fails, the server side validation kicks in.

                                You may need to do some basic web surfing - when you do, you will see that
                                almost all websites that have forms use client side validation. They have
                                absolutely niothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain.

                                Anyway, this is digressing from the original point, so will leave it right
                                there. If you are building forms and are not bothering to validate them on
                                the client, you are failing the end users of the websites you build. You
                                will be forcing them to travel back to the server to validate when the vast
                                majority of them have the ability to do this validtion without this extra
                                overhead. So I hope your understanding of this matter improves.


                                "Alan" <dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                news:C10B5995.2A0CCD%dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com...
                                >
                                >
                                > >> Why ask for a standard for client side validation when it simply won't
                                work
                                > >> because there will be user agents that will ignore it?
                                > >
                                > > Are you serious? Of course there will be user agents that will ignore
                                it!
                                > > Just as there are user agent that will ignore javascript based
                                validation,
                                > > or user agents that will ignore ANY newly introduced tag or attribute.
                                Even
                                > > user agents tha will ignore well established tags and attributes. That
                                is
                                > > the whole point, that there is no support for it and we think there
                                should
                                > > be.
                                >
                                >
                                > Yes- I am serious. Because the intent of your proposed tag attribute is
                                that
                                > it's used for client side validation. And if introduced, it would be used
                                > for validation of form data. And relied on by some as the only validation
                                of
                                > the form data.
                                >
                                > It won't work in all user agents, so it simply won't work. Even if it's
                                > eventually adopted into 100% of web browsers- it could be easily bypassed
                                at
                                > will. It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.
                                >


                                • 13. Re: maxlength behaviour
                                  Level 7
                                  > Anyway, this is digressing from the original point, so will leave it right
                                  > there. If you are building forms and are not bothering to validate them on
                                  > the client, you are failing the end users of the websites you build.

                                  I think this is fear mongering. The delay involved in passing the form to
                                  the server, and back to the client if there is an error is miniscule.

                                  > You
                                  > will be forcing them to travel back to the server to validate when the
                                  > vast
                                  > majority of them have the ability to do this validtion without this extra
                                  > overhead.

                                  The extra overhead is not really measurable. And the client / user doesn't
                                  care - they just want and expect the form to work.

                                  I rarely do client-side validation any more.

                                  --
                                  Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                                  Adobe Community Expert
                                  (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                                  ==================
                                  http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                                  http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                  http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                  http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                                  ==================


                                  "RonOnTop" <ron123T@hotmail.com> wrote in message
                                  news:ecau4l$hvb$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                  > rE: It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.
                                  >
                                  > Can I just say as politely as possible, that you do not really know what
                                  > you
                                  > are talking aout. Not only is it not 'wrong-headed' it is also totally
                                  > advisable that you do validation client side, and then you do it server
                                  > side
                                  > also. You do it client side to save the form from having to submit to the
                                  > server only to recieve back a validation message from server side code.
                                  > The
                                  > client side validation will work, and speed up the process in most cases.
                                  > In
                                  > the cases where it fails, the server side validation kicks in.
                                  >
                                  > You may need to do some basic web surfing - when you do, you will see that
                                  > almost all websites that have forms use client side validation. They have
                                  > absolutely niothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain.
                                  >
                                  > Anyway, this is digressing from the original point, so will leave it right
                                  > there. If you are building forms and are not bothering to validate them on
                                  > the client, you are failing the end users of the websites you build. You
                                  > will be forcing them to travel back to the server to validate when the
                                  > vast
                                  > majority of them have the ability to do this validtion without this extra
                                  > overhead. So I hope your understanding of this matter improves.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > "Alan" <dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                  > news:C10B5995.2A0CCD%dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com...
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >> >> Why ask for a standard for client side validation when it simply won't
                                  > work
                                  >> >> because there will be user agents that will ignore it?
                                  >> >
                                  >> > Are you serious? Of course there will be user agents that will ignore
                                  > it!
                                  >> > Just as there are user agent that will ignore javascript based
                                  > validation,
                                  >> > or user agents that will ignore ANY newly introduced tag or attribute.
                                  > Even
                                  >> > user agents tha will ignore well established tags and attributes. That
                                  > is
                                  >> > the whole point, that there is no support for it and we think there
                                  > should
                                  >> > be.
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >> Yes- I am serious. Because the intent of your proposed tag attribute is
                                  > that
                                  >> it's used for client side validation. And if introduced, it would be used
                                  >> for validation of form data. And relied on by some as the only validation
                                  > of
                                  >> the form data.
                                  >>
                                  >> It won't work in all user agents, so it simply won't work. Even if it's
                                  >> eventually adopted into 100% of web browsers- it could be easily bypassed
                                  > at
                                  >> will. It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  >


                                  • 14. Re: maxlength behaviour
                                    Level 7
                                    >The extra overhead is not really measurable.

                                    How can you possibly know - the page could be huge, use resources that are
                                    expensive to create or simply be very heavy while making poor use of
                                    caching. Aside from this very real possibility, the unneccasarry submit
                                    could cause loss of scroll position or other unwanted side effects. As but
                                    one example, have you any notion of how the reduction of traffic to a server
                                    can be reduced ten fold on busy servers, simply due to not having to deal
                                    with unneccasarry requests?

                                    I'm sorry, but to not use a perfectly good tool to cover these eventualities
                                    is pure laziness in my opinion. Particularly when the use of this tool has
                                    no downsides, the tool is widely available, ubiquitous even, and if it fails
                                    to run, its simply picked up at the server level. No harm done.

                                    >> I think this is fear mongering.

                                    Are you kidding? Suggesting the use of javascript for validation is fear
                                    mongering - that has to be the single most ridiculous idea I have been
                                    presented with by another web professional in quite a few years. I can only
                                    assume that you are more of a graphic designer type or that this is just an
                                    anomaly in the way you normally approach web development, as I find it hard
                                    to see how you get the ACE with this level of understanding.





                                    "Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
                                    news:ecavhm$j91$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                    > > Anyway, this is digressing from the original point, so will leave it
                                    right
                                    > > there. If you are building forms and are not bothering to validate them
                                    on
                                    > > the client, you are failing the end users of the websites you build.
                                    >
                                    > I think this is fear mongering. The delay involved in passing the form to
                                    > the server, and back to the client if there is an error is miniscule.
                                    >
                                    > > You
                                    > > will be forcing them to travel back to the server to validate when the
                                    > > vast
                                    > > majority of them have the ability to do this validtion without this
                                    extra
                                    > > overhead.
                                    >
                                    > The extra overhead is not really measurable. And the client / user
                                    doesn't
                                    > care - they just want and expect the form to work.
                                    >
                                    > I rarely do client-side validation any more.
                                    >
                                    > --
                                    > Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                                    > Adobe Community Expert
                                    > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                                    > ==================
                                    > http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                                    > http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                    > http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                    > http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                                    > ==================
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > "RonOnTop" <ron123T@hotmail.com> wrote in message
                                    > news:ecau4l$hvb$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                    > > rE: It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.
                                    > >
                                    > > Can I just say as politely as possible, that you do not really know what
                                    > > you
                                    > > are talking aout. Not only is it not 'wrong-headed' it is also totally
                                    > > advisable that you do validation client side, and then you do it server
                                    > > side
                                    > > also. You do it client side to save the form from having to submit to
                                    the
                                    > > server only to recieve back a validation message from server side code.
                                    > > The
                                    > > client side validation will work, and speed up the process in most
                                    cases.
                                    > > In
                                    > > the cases where it fails, the server side validation kicks in.
                                    > >
                                    > > You may need to do some basic web surfing - when you do, you will see
                                    that
                                    > > almost all websites that have forms use client side validation. They
                                    have
                                    > > absolutely niothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain.
                                    > >
                                    > > Anyway, this is digressing from the original point, so will leave it
                                    right
                                    > > there. If you are building forms and are not bothering to validate them
                                    on
                                    > > the client, you are failing the end users of the websites you build. You
                                    > > will be forcing them to travel back to the server to validate when the
                                    > > vast
                                    > > majority of them have the ability to do this validtion without this
                                    extra
                                    > > overhead. So I hope your understanding of this matter improves.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > "Alan" <dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                    > > news:C10B5995.2A0CCD%dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com...
                                    > >>
                                    > >>
                                    > >> >> Why ask for a standard for client side validation when it simply
                                    won't
                                    > > work
                                    > >> >> because there will be user agents that will ignore it?
                                    > >> >
                                    > >> > Are you serious? Of course there will be user agents that will ignore
                                    > > it!
                                    > >> > Just as there are user agent that will ignore javascript based
                                    > > validation,
                                    > >> > or user agents that will ignore ANY newly introduced tag or
                                    attribute.
                                    > > Even
                                    > >> > user agents tha will ignore well established tags and attributes.
                                    That
                                    > > is
                                    > >> > the whole point, that there is no support for it and we think there
                                    > > should
                                    > >> > be.
                                    > >>
                                    > >>
                                    > >> Yes- I am serious. Because the intent of your proposed tag attribute is
                                    > > that
                                    > >> it's used for client side validation. And if introduced, it would be
                                    used
                                    > >> for validation of form data. And relied on by some as the only
                                    validation
                                    > > of
                                    > >> the form data.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> It won't work in all user agents, so it simply won't work. Even if it's
                                    > >> eventually adopted into 100% of web browsers- it could be easily
                                    bypassed
                                    > > at
                                    > >> will. It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.
                                    > >>
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >


                                    • 15. Re: maxlength behaviour
                                      Level 7
                                      I have to agree with RonOnTop here Murray - there are many reasons to make
                                      use of client side validation and practically no reasons not to. In case you
                                      didn't notice, almost all web sites make use of this - and why wouldn't
                                      they?

                                      I have noticed some of your other posts, and generally it seems you are a
                                      useful and helpful soul here in these forums - this one, however, is a bit
                                      of a blooper.

                                      For the benefit of the other poster - please consider that server side
                                      languages such as Asp.Net and ColdFusion, amongst others, actually create
                                      the client side validation code for you. And they do this for exactly the
                                      reason RonOnTop mentioned. Consider this for a moment - the creators of
                                      server side languages themselves agree that client side validation is
                                      neccasarry, useful and far preferable than doing it on the server. Kind of
                                      puts it in context doesn't it?

                                      Rule of thumb - if the client can do it, don't bother the server.




                                      "Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
                                      news:ecavhm$j91$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                      > > Anyway, this is digressing from the original point, so will leave it
                                      right
                                      > > there. If you are building forms and are not bothering to validate them
                                      on
                                      > > the client, you are failing the end users of the websites you build.
                                      >
                                      > I think this is fear mongering. The delay involved in passing the form to
                                      > the server, and back to the client if there is an error is miniscule.
                                      >
                                      > > You
                                      > > will be forcing them to travel back to the server to validate when the
                                      > > vast
                                      > > majority of them have the ability to do this validtion without this
                                      extra
                                      > > overhead.
                                      >
                                      > The extra overhead is not really measurable. And the client / user
                                      doesn't
                                      > care - they just want and expect the form to work.
                                      >
                                      > I rarely do client-side validation any more.
                                      >
                                      > --
                                      > Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                                      > Adobe Community Expert
                                      > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                                      > ==================
                                      > http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                                      > http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                      > http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                      > http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                                      > ==================
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > "RonOnTop" <ron123T@hotmail.com> wrote in message
                                      > news:ecau4l$hvb$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                      > > rE: It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.
                                      > >
                                      > > Can I just say as politely as possible, that you do not really know what
                                      > > you
                                      > > are talking aout. Not only is it not 'wrong-headed' it is also totally
                                      > > advisable that you do validation client side, and then you do it server
                                      > > side
                                      > > also. You do it client side to save the form from having to submit to
                                      the
                                      > > server only to recieve back a validation message from server side code.
                                      > > The
                                      > > client side validation will work, and speed up the process in most
                                      cases.
                                      > > In
                                      > > the cases where it fails, the server side validation kicks in.
                                      > >
                                      > > You may need to do some basic web surfing - when you do, you will see
                                      that
                                      > > almost all websites that have forms use client side validation. They
                                      have
                                      > > absolutely niothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain.
                                      > >
                                      > > Anyway, this is digressing from the original point, so will leave it
                                      right
                                      > > there. If you are building forms and are not bothering to validate them
                                      on
                                      > > the client, you are failing the end users of the websites you build. You
                                      > > will be forcing them to travel back to the server to validate when the
                                      > > vast
                                      > > majority of them have the ability to do this validtion without this
                                      extra
                                      > > overhead. So I hope your understanding of this matter improves.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > "Alan" <dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                      > > news:C10B5995.2A0CCD%dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com...
                                      > >>
                                      > >>
                                      > >> >> Why ask for a standard for client side validation when it simply
                                      won't
                                      > > work
                                      > >> >> because there will be user agents that will ignore it?
                                      > >> >
                                      > >> > Are you serious? Of course there will be user agents that will ignore
                                      > > it!
                                      > >> > Just as there are user agent that will ignore javascript based
                                      > > validation,
                                      > >> > or user agents that will ignore ANY newly introduced tag or
                                      attribute.
                                      > > Even
                                      > >> > user agents tha will ignore well established tags and attributes.
                                      That
                                      > > is
                                      > >> > the whole point, that there is no support for it and we think there
                                      > > should
                                      > >> > be.
                                      > >>
                                      > >>
                                      > >> Yes- I am serious. Because the intent of your proposed tag attribute is
                                      > > that
                                      > >> it's used for client side validation. And if introduced, it would be
                                      used
                                      > >> for validation of form data. And relied on by some as the only
                                      validation
                                      > > of
                                      > >> the form data.
                                      > >>
                                      > >> It won't work in all user agents, so it simply won't work. Even if it's
                                      > >> eventually adopted into 100% of web browsers- it could be easily
                                      bypassed
                                      > > at
                                      > >> will. It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.
                                      > >>
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >


                                      • 16. Re: maxlength behaviour
                                        Level 7
                                        >> Rule of thumb - if the client can do it, don't bother the server.

                                        Absolutely, especially if you have nothing to lose. I find it strange Murray
                                        saying he can't be bothered doing this given that DW can do all the hard
                                        work for you.

                                        "Monza" <monica@taskinteractive.net> wrote in message
                                        news:ecb4ug$oha$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                        >I have to agree with RonOnTop here Murray - there are many reasons to make
                                        > use of client side validation and practically no reasons not to. In case
                                        > you
                                        > didn't notice, almost all web sites make use of this - and why wouldn't
                                        > they?
                                        >
                                        > I have noticed some of your other posts, and generally it seems you are a
                                        > useful and helpful soul here in these forums - this one, however, is a bit
                                        > of a blooper.
                                        >
                                        > For the benefit of the other poster - please consider that server side
                                        > languages such as Asp.Net and ColdFusion, amongst others, actually create
                                        > the client side validation code for you. And they do this for exactly the
                                        > reason RonOnTop mentioned. Consider this for a moment - the creators of
                                        > server side languages themselves agree that client side validation is
                                        > neccasarry, useful and far preferable than doing it on the server. Kind of
                                        > puts it in context doesn't it?
                                        >
                                        > Rule of thumb - if the client can do it, don't bother the server.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > "Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
                                        > news:ecavhm$j91$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                        >> > Anyway, this is digressing from the original point, so will leave it
                                        > right
                                        >> > there. If you are building forms and are not bothering to validate them
                                        > on
                                        >> > the client, you are failing the end users of the websites you build.
                                        >>
                                        >> I think this is fear mongering. The delay involved in passing the form
                                        >> to
                                        >> the server, and back to the client if there is an error is miniscule.
                                        >>
                                        >> > You
                                        >> > will be forcing them to travel back to the server to validate when the
                                        >> > vast
                                        >> > majority of them have the ability to do this validtion without this
                                        > extra
                                        >> > overhead.
                                        >>
                                        >> The extra overhead is not really measurable. And the client / user
                                        > doesn't
                                        >> care - they just want and expect the form to work.
                                        >>
                                        >> I rarely do client-side validation any more.
                                        >>
                                        >> --
                                        >> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                                        >> Adobe Community Expert
                                        >> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                                        >> ==================
                                        >> http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                                        >> http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                        >> http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                        >> http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                                        >> ==================
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >> "RonOnTop" <ron123T@hotmail.com> wrote in message
                                        >> news:ecau4l$hvb$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                        >> > rE: It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.
                                        >> >
                                        >> > Can I just say as politely as possible, that you do not really know
                                        >> > what
                                        >> > you
                                        >> > are talking aout. Not only is it not 'wrong-headed' it is also totally
                                        >> > advisable that you do validation client side, and then you do it server
                                        >> > side
                                        >> > also. You do it client side to save the form from having to submit to
                                        > the
                                        >> > server only to recieve back a validation message from server side code.
                                        >> > The
                                        >> > client side validation will work, and speed up the process in most
                                        > cases.
                                        >> > In
                                        >> > the cases where it fails, the server side validation kicks in.
                                        >> >
                                        >> > You may need to do some basic web surfing - when you do, you will see
                                        > that
                                        >> > almost all websites that have forms use client side validation. They
                                        > have
                                        >> > absolutely niothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain.
                                        >> >
                                        >> > Anyway, this is digressing from the original point, so will leave it
                                        > right
                                        >> > there. If you are building forms and are not bothering to validate them
                                        > on
                                        >> > the client, you are failing the end users of the websites you build.
                                        >> > You
                                        >> > will be forcing them to travel back to the server to validate when the
                                        >> > vast
                                        >> > majority of them have the ability to do this validtion without this
                                        > extra
                                        >> > overhead. So I hope your understanding of this matter improves.
                                        >> >
                                        >> >
                                        >> > "Alan" <dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                        >> > news:C10B5995.2A0CCD%dont_mail_me_period@macromedia.com...
                                        >> >>
                                        >> >>
                                        >> >> >> Why ask for a standard for client side validation when it simply
                                        > won't
                                        >> > work
                                        >> >> >> because there will be user agents that will ignore it?
                                        >> >> >
                                        >> >> > Are you serious? Of course there will be user agents that will
                                        >> >> > ignore
                                        >> > it!
                                        >> >> > Just as there are user agent that will ignore javascript based
                                        >> > validation,
                                        >> >> > or user agents that will ignore ANY newly introduced tag or
                                        > attribute.
                                        >> > Even
                                        >> >> > user agents tha will ignore well established tags and attributes.
                                        > That
                                        >> > is
                                        >> >> > the whole point, that there is no support for it and we think there
                                        >> > should
                                        >> >> > be.
                                        >> >>
                                        >> >>
                                        >> >> Yes- I am serious. Because the intent of your proposed tag attribute
                                        >> >> is
                                        >> > that
                                        >> >> it's used for client side validation. And if introduced, it would be
                                        > used
                                        >> >> for validation of form data. And relied on by some as the only
                                        > validation
                                        >> > of
                                        >> >> the form data.
                                        >> >>
                                        >> >> It won't work in all user agents, so it simply won't work. Even if
                                        >> >> it's
                                        >> >> eventually adopted into 100% of web browsers- it could be easily
                                        > bypassed
                                        >> > at
                                        >> >> will. It's wrong-headed to do form validation client side.
                                        >> >>
                                        >> >
                                        >> >
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        >