Re: Proposed FormVariables hierarchy
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2000
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 31580
interpreted = N
texte = >A proposed new hierarchy might go something like this: > >HTML Form Context (all passed-in form variables, smart [CART], >insecure text vars) > Application Context (things like [VERSION] [DATE] [TIME] >[ELAPSEDTIME], default secure text vars) > Browser Context (things like [IPADDRESS] [REFERRER] [USERNAME] >[PASSWORD]) > template code (your own contexts nested however you decide) > [xxx] <- look for xxx here, and if not found, go up ^^^ > >By adding a second namespace for holding text variables (up in the >HTML Form Context), we can provide a place for storing insecure text >variables. The parser will find secure text variables first, then >form variables, then insecure textvariables. A side-effect would be >that one could have text variables with exactly the same name in both >namespaces, but secure ones would be found first. > >Default behavior would be to store text variables in the secure >namespace. Adding the optional secure=F parameter like [text >secure=f]fred=hello[/text] would put those values into the new >un-secure namespace. This may be the solution we've been hoping for ...One thing I notice here is that you never actually mention [math] variables. Since I do not want to make any assumptions, I will ask you directly: Will you add insecure math variables to the HTML Form Context group so math variables will have the same optional secure=f parameter and behavior as text variables?Another question, do you have (or will you be adding to the HTML docs) a list of all the variable names in the browser and application contexts?Also, how will this proposed solution change the previous hierarchy of interpreted [tag] values when a variable tag has the same name as a database field tags inside founditems contexts, or an order file field tag inside order file contexts? ================================ Kenneth Grome, WebDNA Consultant 808-737-6499 http://webdna.net ================================############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to Send administrative queries to
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
>A proposed new hierarchy might go something like this: > >HTML Form Context (all passed-in form variables, smart [cart], >insecure text vars) > Application Context (things like [version] [date] [time] >[elapsedtime], default secure text vars) > Browser Context (things like [ipaddress] [referrer] [username] >[password]) > template code (your own contexts nested however you decide) > [xxx] <- look for xxx here, and if not found, go up ^^^ > >By adding a second namespace for holding text variables (up in the >HTML Form Context), we can provide a place for storing insecure text >variables. The parser will find secure text variables first, then >form variables, then insecure textvariables. A side-effect would be >that one could have text variables with exactly the same name in both >namespaces, but secure ones would be found first. > >Default behavior would be to store text variables in the secure >namespace. Adding the optional secure=F parameter like [text >secure=f]fred=hello[/text] would put those values into the new >un-secure namespace. This may be the solution we've been hoping for ...One thing I notice here is that you never actually mention [math] variables. Since I do not want to make any assumptions, I will ask you directly: Will you add insecure math variables to the HTML Form Context group so math variables will have the same optional secure=f parameter and behavior as text variables?Another question, do you have (or will you be adding to the HTML docs) a list of all the variable names in the browser and application contexts?Also, how will this proposed solution change the previous hierarchy of interpreted [tag] values when a variable tag has the same name as a database field tags inside founditems contexts, or an order file field tag inside order file contexts? ================================ Kenneth Grome, WebDNA Consultant 808-737-6499 http://webdna.net ================================############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to Send administrative queries to
Kenneth Grome
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Umm...about those log files? (Off Topic) (1997)
HELP WITH DATES (1997)
Altivec (Velocity engine) (2000)
Kaaaaahhhhhhhnnnnnnn! (1997)
Checkboxes (1998)
WebCat2b13MacPlugin - nested [xxx] contexts (1997)
WebCat2 beta 11 - new prefs ... (1997)
Stumpted Again (1997)
Database Repopulation (2004)
Upgrade Pricing? (2003)
Setting up shop (1997)
Is this possible, WebCat2.0 and checkboxes (1997)
2nd WebCatalog2 Feature Request (1996)
default value from Lookup (was Grant, please help me) (1997)
emptying shopping carts and orders folder (2004)
[OT] PHP?MySQL Help Needed (2003)
japanese characters (1997)
OS X Server & Uploads (2001)
Install Webcatalog under NT4.0 and Microsoft IIS 2.0 (1997)
Problems when user hit back (2000)