0
I’m opening this topic to find out how you’ve been working with the issue of RG inclusion in forms.
I think a common concern of all when working with forms is that the control of data is in our hands - and not in the hands of the user.
for this, qto better formatted and controlled each field, better.
One of my big problems is how to control the ID field.
Even so - and for the vast majority of clients I work with, the ID is unnecessary - I somehow end up convincing the client to "ignore" the field in their forms, but now I’m having to work with the ID that is necessary for a client.
Since I don’t have a lot of experience in this I’d like to know how you’ve been working with RG - whether you’re leaving the field open, open or somehow controlling.
From what I’ve seen, read, reli, the best way to control the field is to lock it for only digits - and format it as XXX.XXX.XXX-X - and inform the user that if the digit is "X" (q for what I’ve seen replaces the 10 in the digit) replace with ZERO.
I don’t know if it’s the best shape anyway - and if it will cover 100% of the reality of Rgs.. (the only letter q we have in RG is X in digit?)
My need is not a CHECKER - because this is impossible - but just a control MASK - to avoid completely random data and leave the field as standardized as possible.
the important thing is that the mask is 100% compatible with all types of Rgs.
RG changes from state to state, can not make mask. Or will have to make for each state a different. Also, you will never know if the ID was typed with or without digit. It has a lot of old ID that came without, and with mask the user goes by "normal" number instead of the digit, causing a bad mess. Usually the best thing is to leave free, and just put an extra field to inform the issuing state, and date of issue. If the document is too important, simply Scan.
– Bacco