You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 12, 2024. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 12, 2024. It is now read-only.
When we use email validation its work. but if you type email 'something@some' its validate it as correct. if we put 'something@some.'then its start validate again.
that's because something@some is an actually valid email address!
There are more advanced things you can do to validate email addresses, like pattern validation with ng-pattern, asynchronous validation to test if it's an actual account on your server, etc (Matsko has an example of this sort of validation with a nice UI using the new ngMessages module on his blog), or just a custom extra validator directive.
We're thinking about making it easier to insert custom email validation rules, but my personal opinion is that input[type=email] should behave the way native HTML email validation behaves, and you can tack on extra validation logic separately.
Anyways, since this is a dupe (#7705, #7798, etc), I think we can close this and carry on the discussion elsewhere
Activity
caitp commentedon Jun 25, 2014
that's because
something@someis an actually valid email address!There are more advanced things you can do to validate email addresses, like pattern validation with ng-pattern, asynchronous validation to test if it's an actual account on your server, etc (Matsko has an example of this sort of validation with a nice UI using the new ngMessages module on his blog), or just a custom extra validator directive.
We're thinking about making it easier to insert custom email validation rules, but my personal opinion is that input[type=email] should behave the way native HTML email validation behaves, and you can tack on extra validation logic separately.
Anyways, since this is a dupe (#7705, #7798, etc), I think we can close this and carry on the discussion elsewhere