I don’t get it. Why is having MXML tags the opposite?
I don’t like the idea of having one property used for two very different things. I think that’s more confusing than requiring a slightly non-standard name. On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 8/8/16, 7:54 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Agreed. That’s why I’m suggestion we using “elementID” instead. > > IMO, that's more work for the less-sophisticated scenario, which is why I > would propose the opposite (another variant of PAYG). A "simple" app that > uses CSS id selectors that is going to be used to compare FlexJS against > other options probably should use "id" as expected. What percentage of > your MXML components have multiple instances on-screen at one time? For > those components, would it be painful to have to set an mxmlID property > instead of "id"? > > Also, if you do use an MXML component twice, could the compiler someday > discover that? > > Thanks, > -Alex > >> >> On Aug 8, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Josh Tynjala <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Using id as the element id would probably lead to duplicate element ids >>> somewhat frequently, I suspect. Any time there are multiple instances of >>> the same component on screen, you'd have duplicates. In the worst case, >>> a >>> custom item renderer where a sub-component has an id would result in >>> many >>> duplicates. >>> >>> - Josh >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Harbs <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Browsers don’t blow up, but they arguably should…[1] ;-) >>>> >>>> I’m not sure why “elementID” would be confusing. >>>> >>>> The other way that I see doing it is to use “id” for the element id, >>>> and >>>> use some other property for the Flex “id” (uid maybe?) >>>> >>>> I don’t like the idea of making it a compiler option or MXML tag. >>>> >>>> [1]http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/ >>>> 127178/two-html-elements-with-same-id-attribute-how-bad-is-it-really >>>> >>>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/7/16, 2:08 PM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Never mind. I was wrong about this. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe we need an option about whether id gets set on the element. >>>>>>> Or >>>>>>> maybe elements in the main view get their ids set. Andy is right >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> MXML components, but lots of folks only have one instance of each >>>>>>> MXML >>>>>>> component and expect CSS id selectors to work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> I would suggest having an additional elementID property and the >>>>>> element >>>>>> would only have an id assigned if it’s set. >>>>> >>>>> Hmm. I don't think that would be obvious to CSS users. >>>>> >>>>> Thinking about this some more, so what if we pass the id on to the >>>> element >>>>> and you create more than one element? Apparently it won't blow up the >>>>> browser. I'd still lean towards having an option to not set the >>>>> element >>>>> id. It might be doable at the document level. Sort of the reverse of >>>>> what you suggested: if you set "dontSetElementIds" on the MXML top >>>>> tag, >>>>> the MXMLDataInterpreter could set some other property like mxmlId >>>>> instead >>>>> of id. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> -Alex >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
