Hi Oli!
well, if the field is not empty, what about ignoring the checkbox? This way the field would have priority over the checkbox, and I would see it as quite logical... And you? :)
Well as I just tell you in my previous post ;), it seems to me neither more, neither less logical since we can't know what is the last user action.
Loïc
______________________________________________________________________________ ifrance.com, l'email gratuit le plus complet de l'Internet ! vos emails depuis un navigateur, en POP3, sur Minitel, sur le WAP... http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/email.emailif
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:54:37AM +0100, Loïc wrote:
Well as I just tell you in my previous post ;), it seems to me neither more, neither less logical since we can't know what is the last user action.
well: if the user action was: * typing in the field -> ignore the checkbox * check to box without emptying the field -> no changes, user should have deleted the contents too (logical?) * emptying field and checkbox: set field = '' (empty, not NULL) * emptying field and setting checkbox: set field = NULL
Olivier
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 11:15:21AM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:54:37AM +0100, Loïc wrote:
Well as I just tell you in my previous post ;), it seems to me neither more, neither less logical since we can't know what is the last user action.
well: if the user action was:
- typing in the field -> ignore the checkbox
ok
- check to box without emptying the field -> no changes, user should have deleted the contents too (logical?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'd like it another way. Just checking the box and not having to empty the field is IMHO much more handy.
- emptying field and checkbox: set field = '' (empty, not NULL)
ok
- emptying field and setting checkbox: set field = NULL
ok
:-)
-
Loïc -
Olivier M. -
Wolfram Schlich