Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
[X] "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)
Cast your votes!
As I would never use CSS rules based on IDs as they are a moving
target IMHO I don't have a problem with it. And if I really had to,
there is at least some workaround IIUC. The other options are really
ugly. So +1 for the first.
I totally agree with your POV, especially as I envision that Ajax will
require us to have form identifiers generated at runtime to allow for
several instances of a form definition in a page [1].
So, since the CSS rule problem is what caused all this discussion, and
we finally consider that it's not that much a problem...
I change my vote:
[X] "foo.bar:input" (colon, not CSS-friendly because of IE, but will
actually never been used in CSS rules)
Sylvain
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=113111500216874&w=2
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
