> > No, I just say you may got a unicode string, but not say you *must*
> > got a unicode string.
>
> sorry, you lost me there. assuming you're still using Python to run
> your Django program, surely u"" gives you a unicode string ? and surely
> that string will be properly encoded and decoded b
limodou wrote:
> On 12/8/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> limodou wrote:
>>
Why not use unicode object directly ?
dict={"adviser":u"n.顾问, <美> (学生的)指导老师","od":"dd"}
>>> because django will auto convert unicode to DEFAULT_CHARSET encoding,
>>> so you got may be no
On 12/8/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> limodou wrote:
>
> >> Why not use unicode object directly ?
> >>
> >> dict={"adviser":u"n.顾问, <美> (学生的)指导老师","od":"dd"}
> >>
> > because django will auto convert unicode to DEFAULT_CHARSET encoding,
> > so you got may be not a unicode string
limodou wrote:
>> Why not use unicode object directly ?
>>
>> dict={"adviser":u"n.顾问, <美> (学生的)指导老师","od":"dd"}
>>
> because django will auto convert unicode to DEFAULT_CHARSET encoding,
> so you got may be not a unicode string
even if you pass the unicode object to simplejson? sound weird.
us
Same effect
json_data = simplejson.dumps((json_data), ensure_ascii=False)
return HttpResponse(json_data, mimetype=text-x-json; charset=utf-8')
"""
If ``ensure_ascii`` is ``False``, then the some chunks written to
``fp``
may be ``unicode`` instances, subject to normal Python ``str`` to
``
My website is based on utf-8. all data in database is in utf-8. but
django didn't auto encode string to unicode for model field. So I have
to encode them manually for template render. In fact I need use slice
filter. otherwise it will break the utf-8 bits.
could django assume all data in database
On 12/8/06, yi huang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not use unicode object directly ?
>
> dict={"adviser":u"n.顾问, <美> (学生的)指导老师","od":"dd"}
>
because django will auto convert unicode to DEFAULT_CHARSET encoding,
so you got may be not a unicode string, and just like I descibed that
there are some
It seems like you would need to have a good grasp on what all of the
expenses were before you could decide how to meet them. LJ sponsors the
project site right? What other development expenses are there? A few
possibilities I thought of:
- Core devs' travel expense?
- Conference materials (do yo
Why not use unicode object directly ?
dict={"adviser":u"n.顾问, <美> (学生的)指导老师","od":"dd"}
--
http://codeplayer.blogspot.com/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this
Hi, is anybody using MultipleChoiceField with any success?
It didn't work for me, so I produced a patch (ticket 3114) to correct
the behaviour.
The ticket also includes some tests that fail when run against the
current SVN version. Could someone please check the patch?
comments welcome
Thanks
PS
On 12/8/06, SP Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The simplejson has some problem when you use chinese character in utf-8
>
> for example ,below chinese dictionary
>
> dict={"adviser":"n.顾问, <美> (学生的)指导老师","od":"dd"}
>
> show be encoded as ,
>
> {"adviser": "n.\u987e\u95ee, <\u7f8e>
> (\u5b66\u751f\u76
The simplejson has some problem when you use chinese character in utf-8
for example ,below chinese dictionary
dict={"adviser":"n.顾问, <美> (学生的)指导老师","od":"dd"}
show be encoded as ,
{"adviser": "n.\u987e\u95ee, <\u7f8e>
(\u5b66\u751f\u7684)\u6307\u5bfc\u8001\u5e08", "od": "dd"}
but the simplejs
On 12/5/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's an abstraction of the workflow "Display an HTML form, force a
> preview, then do something with the submission."
Very slick.
> What other sorts of things can we make abstractions for,
> given a Form?
I wanted to come up with a standa
Isn't it useful to allow two-step validation in general: one by the
form and one by the model when saving (both optional of course). This
would allow to add constraints to a form that are not needed by the
model in general (interesting when using different forms on the same
model eg for different
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> On 12/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, something along the lines of the wizard control in ASP.NET.
> > Ideally, nothing is committed to the db unless all the pages in the
> > wizard are validated. Whether this is done by capturing the
> > inter
Waylan Limberg wrote:
> Presumably each page would do validation on submit (we don't want to
> send the user back to page one after completing 10 pages). If the
> validated data is now in hidden fields, couldn't someone alter that
> data (with evil intent) requiring re-validation?
Why would it be
I'm interested.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAI
On 12/7/06, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was a discussion a long time ago about Django t-shirts (at
> OSCON?). My question for the core devs is: Why not set up a quick Cafe
> Press site for a couple simple t-shirts and use the money to help fund
> development? Maybe put up boun
There was a discussion a long time ago about Django t-shirts (at
OSCON?). My question for the core devs is: Why not set up a quick Cafe
Press site for a couple simple t-shirts and use the money to help fund
development? Maybe put up bounties for some bugs or features? Or
simply split the proce
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> Also, this is only the beginning of django.contrib.formtools, which I
> intend to be a collection of common high-level form operations such as
> this one. What other sorts of things can we make abstractions for,
> given a Form?
I do have an idea, almost an obsession: I
On 12/7/06, Antonio Cavedoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/7/06, Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Presumably each page would do validation on submit (we don't want to
> > send the user back to page one after completing 10 pages). If the
> > validated data is now in hidden fields,
On 12/7/06, Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Presumably each page would do validation on submit (we don't want to
> send the user back to page one after completing 10 pages). If the
> validated data is now in hidden fields, couldn't someone alter that
> data (with evil intent) requiring
On 12/7/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This would be a great addition. Rather than requiring sessions, what
> do you think of passing intermediate form data in hidden fields? It's
> simpler, it wouldn't require cookies and I can't immediately think of
> any downsides to the appro
On 20061207.0851, Adrian Holovaty said ...
> This would be a great addition. Rather than requiring sessions, what
> do you think of passing intermediate form data in hidden fields? It's
> simpler, it wouldn't require cookies and I can't immediately think of
> any downsides to the approach.
One do
On 12/7/06, Antonio Cavedoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This would be a great addition. Rather than requiring sessions, what
> > do you think of passing intermediate form data in hidden fields?
>
> Isn't that the way the dreaded ASP.NET "view state" works? Saving
> marshaled temporary data in
On 12/7/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This would be a great addition. Rather than requiring sessions, what
> do you think of passing intermediate form data in hidden fields?
Isn't that the way the dreaded ASP.NET "view state" works? Saving
marshaled temporary data in a hidden f
On 12/7/06, Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But looking at the code, the error string is passed in first
> regardless of whether `errors_on_separate_row` or not. Perhaps
> `_html_output()` should use the optional mapping key for string
> substitution [1].
Hey, that's a really good sug
On 12/7/06, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> > This would be a great addition. Rather than requiring sessions, what
> > do you think of passing intermediate form data in hidden fields?
>
> +1
>
> It's cleaner anyway since all data accumulated in one place.
>
+1
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> This would be a great addition. Rather than requiring sessions, what
> do you think of passing intermediate form data in hidden fields?
+1
It's cleaner anyway since all data accumulated in one place.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received th
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> On 12/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, something along the lines of the wizard control in ASP.NET.
>> Ideally, nothing is committed to the db unless all the pages in the
>> wizard are validated. Whether this is done by capturing the
>> intermedi
Adrian, excellent job abstracting the common code into
`Form._html_output()`. Now, anyone can write there own `as_method()`
as a one-liner - with one minor problem...
On 12/7/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12/1/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So maybe an as
On 12/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, something along the lines of the wizard control in ASP.NET.
> Ideally, nothing is committed to the db unless all the pages in the
> wizard are validated. Whether this is done by capturing the
> intermediate form data in the session o
Yes, something along the lines of the wizard control in ASP.NET.
Ideally, nothing is committed to the db unless all the pages in the
wizard are validated. Whether this is done by capturing the
intermediate form data in the session or by rolling back a db
transaction, I'm not sure. DB transaction
I'm just wondering if anyone is following up on this issue, as I've
just been bitten by it? Or I'd happy to pull together some diff's and
have a shot at some regression tests - but don't want to tread on
anyone's toes?
-Phil
On 01/12/06, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 1
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> What other sorts of things can we make abstractions for,
> given a Form?
Wizards, maybe? Given a series of forms, run through them all appending data
from previous forms to next ones, or processing each in turn. Maybe an option
to
have it do either, so you can process
35 matches
Mail list logo
