Form and enctype.

[opt_inf_env]

Hi.

I found out that when one creates form which should upload files one
needs to use: enctype="multipart/form-data"

In other cases one needs to use:
enctype="application/x-www-form-urlencoded"

However, what is still not clear to me is what value for enctype I need
to use if I want to create form which should both contains text fields
and form for files uploading.

To empirically find an answer on my question, I have created form which
contains only text fields and put there
enctype="application/x-www-form-urlencoded".

I found no differences from form with default value for anctype. Even
if I put special symbols in text fields (such as &, %, ?, and so on).

What bad can happen with the usage of text fields in combination with
enctype="application/x-www-form-urlencoded"?

[Jukka K. Korpela]

op*********@yahoo.com wrote:

I found out that when one creates form which should upload files one
needs to use: enctype="multipart/form-data"
Right.
In other cases one needs to use:
enctype="application/x-www-form-urlencoded"
No, you don't. First, it's the default, so it need not be specified
explicitly. Second, enctype="multipart/form-data" can be used even if there
is no file input field. It's just about the format of encoding form data.
However, what is still not clear to me is what value for enctype I need
to use if I want to create form which should both contains text fields
and form for files uploading.
You need to use enctype="multipart/form-data", as the spec says.
To empirically find an answer on my question,
Why? Your tests will be limited anyway. Why not check the specs first?
I have created form which
contains only text fields and put there
enctype="application/x-www-form-urlencoded".

I found no differences from form with default value for anctype.

That's because the default _is_ "application/x-www-form-urlencoded".

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[opt_inf_env]

The main question is what can happen if I use text fields in
combination with enctype="multipart/form-data".

[Jukka K. Korpela]

op*********@yahoo.com wrote:

The main question is what can happen if I use text fields in
combination with enctype="multipart/form-data".

Well, that's _not_ what you asked first time. Yet, it too _was_ answered in
my message.

Consider reading what I wrote. If problems remain, please quote the part you
didn't understand and try to explain why you find it difficult.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[opt_inf_env]

> > The main question is what can happen if I use text fields in

combination with enctype="multipart/form-data".

Well, that's _not_ what you asked first time. Yet, it too _was_ answered in
my message.

Your answer should be here.

In other cases one needs to use:
enctype="application/x-www-form-urlencoded"

No, you don't. First, it's the default, so it need not be specified
explicitly. Second, enctype="multipart/form-data" can be used even if there
is no file input field. It's just about the format of encoding form data.

However, it is not full answer. I know that value of enctype change
format of encoding. The question is what exectly these changes are? How
I can see these changes. I posted values of text fields with the usage
of both values of enctype and I did not find any differences.

[David Dorward]

op*********@yahoo.com wrote:

Well, that's _not_ what you asked first time. Yet, it too _was_ answered
in my message.

Your answer should be here.
If you don't like being refered back to a previous answer instead of having
redundant copy/pasting dumped into the thread, then I'm sure that Jukka
would be quite happy to provide you will a full refund of everything you've
paid him for his help on this matter.
However, it is not full answer. I know that value of enctype change
format of encoding. The question is what exectly these changes are? How
I can see these changes.
If you really care then you can look at the differences in STDIN and
environment variables received by your server side script ... but since
pretty much every form handling library deals with such things
transparently, it doesn't really make much practical difference[1].
I posted values of text fields with the usage
of both values of enctype and I did not find any differences.

Presumably because your form handling library handles it transparently (as
is only sensible), so it makes no practical difference to you.

[1] Unless you are writing your own such library, but I wouldn't recommend
attempting that if you aren't skilled enough to find the specification that
you want to implement.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[opt_inf_env]

Thank you for your answer.

P.S. Sometimes it is easier to get answer in newsgroups than to read
hundreds of pages overfilled by a formalized syntax. One person spends
30 second to help me avoid hours of usefulness search and reading. It
is for what forums are, isn't. Moreover, one needs to remember that
nobody is forced to give me answer.

[David Dorward]

op*********@yahoo.com wrote:

P.S. Sometimes it is easier to get answer in newsgroups than to read
hundreds of pages overfilled by a formalized syntax.
Umm. "The post you just responded to" was not "hundreds of pages overfilled
by a formalized syntax". The closest anybody came to suggesting you read
something like that was my comment that you would need to if you were
implementing a form processing library ... which doesn't seem likely given
your earlier remarks.
Moreover, one needs to remember that nobody is forced to give me answer.

All the more reason for you to be polite.... which includes following the
Usenet convention of quoting sufficient material from the post you are
responding to to make clear the context of your message.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Charlie King]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:06:15 +0000, in
<dq*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
(comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html) David Dorward
<do*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

All the more reason for you to be polite....

One's reasons to be polite are substantially eroded once one's
correspondent takes it upon himself to be condescendingly rude and
patronising to one, don't you think?
--
Charlie

[Michael Winter]

On 15/01/2006 15:41, Charlie King wrote:

[snip]

One's reasons to be polite are substantially eroded once one's
correspondent takes it upon himself to be condescendingly rude and
patronising to one, don't you think?

No, not particularly. The "They started it!" defence is something one
should expect from children, not adults.

If one were so offended, one should either refrain from posting, or
kill-file the offending person. It would, of course, be nice to never
experience discourtesy, but such a thing will be forever present
(especially in Usenet).

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.