Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
So please choose one proposal below:
[ ] "foo.bar:input" (colon, not CSS-friendly because of IE)
[ ] "foo.bar..input" (double period)
[ ] "foo.bar.input." (trailing period)
[ ] "foo.bar._input" (underscore, requires to forbid it as the beginning
of widget names)
Sorry for stepping in very late, but to me all of these solutions look
rather ugly. If I only have the choice between the four from above, I
would go for the underscore solution.
But why can't we just use "bar-input" and forbid to use id's that end
with "-input"? Or forbid the use of '-'?
Oh please, go read the threads.
We cannot forbid "-" in widget names, as it's used in too much
occasions.
Sigh, how do you know that people are not using ':' in their widget ids?
Which is starting with 2.1.8 not allowed any more...so as we don't have
problems with not allowing the ':' character in ids, I don't see a
reason why we should handle the '-' differently?
Anyways, this whole id thing is really a pita and suggestions like a
double period or trailing period are absolutely not userfriendly. It
doesn't matter how often you have to use them.
So, for clearness, I would go for a different solution but as this vote
is only about the four suggestions my vote is:
[X] "foo.bar._input" (underscore, requires to forbid it as the beginning
of widget names)
I know we are under pressure to release 2.1.8 really soon. I think this
decision is really important. It impact the whole cforms framework.
Hence, if you have a more elegant idea, please share it with us. :-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
