Forms Retaining Data

[SamMan]

A question came up at work from one of our clients about forms on their
site.

The data from these forms are processed by a PHP script and if all goes
well, a thank you screen appears. Sometimes, when you go back to the form
(by clicking the back button), the data is still there in the form fields.
Other times it is not. The client would like to ensure the data remains, as
they sometimes have multiple submissions to make with similar entries.

There is client-side validation (JavaScript) on the forms, but other than
that, nothing else special about them.

Is there a way to ensure the values in the fields remain on return, or is
this just a quirk in browsers? The most commonly used browsers are IE & NN.

I would include a link to the form in question, but it is a request form for
a gubernatorial service (sent directly to the Gov's office), and I'd hate to
see them receive bogus requests.
Thanks.

--
SamMan
Rip it to reply

[Brian]

Jim Ley wrote:

onsubmit is an event, there almost certainly some javascript capable
UAs that have no onsubmit event, although that's probably very rare
So if there's no onSubmit event, then a script attached to that event
will never fire. But relying on js for form submission seems crazy
anyways. I tried S. Poley's idea of quick client-side data validation
tied to onChange and onSubmit; the script returns false if something is
wrong. But I don't see any danger in this approach, so long as
validation is also done server-side as necessary.
what I certainly use often is a script which submits a form without
firing onsubmit,
How do you do that?
because client-side scripts are so bad.
Processing scripts?
The larger problem though is in what happens when there's an error in
your validation code, this is very common - using RegExp's in a
non-RegExp capable client for example.
Hmm. The validation script does use RegExp. So what happens with a
script that validates using RegExp in a client that has onSubmit and no
RegExp? I'd better think about that.

In this particular case? Or are you saying that NOSCRIPT should
never be used?

I've never seen a case!

banal example: using js write() to write a mailto: email address, and
NOSCRIPT to write that address as plain text.
you need to ensure that your page still works - if your "no
javascript" fallback is hidden from the user inside a NOSCRIPT it
won't help on jot.
That's good general advice.
for example, instead of:

<script type="text/ecmascript">
document.write( "something with snazzy features");
</script>
<noscript>
something
</noscript>

do

something
<script type="text/ecmascript">
if (variousObjectT ests() ) {
// Use some script to add to something, or replace
// something or whatever is appropriate
}
</script>

Good example. But you need, then, to add the "snazzy features" via js
without replacing it. If you replace it, something could still go wrong,
e.g., the client removes "something" but fails to put "something with
snazzy features" in its place.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Jim Ley]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 08:44:50 -0400, Brian
<us*****@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote:

Jim Ley wrote:

In this particular case? Or are you saying that NOSCRIPT should
never be used?

I've never seen a case!

banal example: using js write() to write a mailto: email address, and
NOSCRIPT to write that address as plain text.

So you believe document.write exists so you can do that safely - those
people who don't have document.write (and document is in no standard
so can you really expect it to be?) don't get anything, the
appropriate way - if there was any point doing it would be to write it
plain text then use DOM methods to change it into a mailto.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Brian]

Jim Ley wrote:

Brian wrote:

banal example: using js write() to write a mailto: email address,
and NOSCRIPT to write that address as plain text.
So you believe document.write exists so you can do that safely -
those people who don't have document.write

Well, I *used* to believe that. ;-)
(and document is in no standard so can you really expect it to be?)
Did I mention that I'm not all that familiar with js? (No, that is not
an excuse. I should learn more about it before using it.)
the appropriate way - if there was any point doing it
There is much debate about munging addresses. I've reluctantly decided
to mung because the spam gets overwhelming, and because it annoys me
perhaps more than it should.
write it plain text then use DOM methods to change it into a mailto.

Thanks for suggestion. I didn't know that such a thing was even
possible. It might be a bit out of my league, but I can start learning
about DOM methods and changing nodes.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Bruce Lewis]

Gertjan Klein <gk****@xs4all. nl> writes:

At least on Mozilla 1.6, Opera 7.23, and IE 6, *if* a submit button is
present, besides one single-line text input, disabling the submit button
disables the described functionality - i.e., pressing Enter no longer
submits the form. This suggests to me that at least their interpretation
is consistent with what I wrote.

However, with just one single-line text input, they will not send any
value specified for a named submit button. Thus pressing Enter and
activating the submit button aren't exactly the same.

[Brian]

Bruce Lewis wrote:

with just one single-line text input, they will not send any
value specified for a named submit button. Thus pressing Enter and
activating the submit button aren't exactly the same.

Google does no appear to work that way. I type text in the only input of
their search form and press my <enter> key. The result is a get request
identical to one caused by pressing the "Google Search" button with a
mouse or the keyboard.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Richard Cornford]

Jim Ley wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" wrote:
snip>

If you use NOSCRIPT in your pages, you're not taking enough care
with your script. NOSCRIPT should not be used.

Sounds like a topic that calls for being covered in your FAQ, no?

I no longer edit it, I'll try and encourage the current
editor in that direction though.

You will encourage me more effectively with e-mail than relying on me to
have time to catch up with the HTML groups. :)

But consider me encouraged as I share your opinion and don't consider
NOSCRIPT tags at all useful. They just don't represent the correct
relationship to be applicable to the problem.

Richard.