Looking at the CL now ... On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 5:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> http://codereview.appspot.com/89073/diff/3037/3041#newcode292 >> Line 292: if (!checkIllegalSuffixes(value, pos)) { return; } >> Why remove illegal suffixes? We append an ID suffix where appropriate, >> and that should be robust enough. > > In this case, we're not appending an idSuffix.
Ah ah, right. Because CSS is scoped using prefixes in the CSS selectors, not class name mangling. Thanks. >> http://codereview.appspot.com/89073/diff/3037/3041#newcode297 >> Line 297: if (!checkIllegalSuffix(value, pos)) { return; } >> Here and in 2 other places below: Why remove illegal suffixes? > > I'm wary of potential for abuse if the mangle/unmangle symmetry > ever accidentally gets screwed up. given that I had to fix some cases > mangle/unmangle asymmetry, and still missed one, the paranoia > seems justified. > also it seems confusing to have different restrictions for only some > types of ID. I agree, that is a consistently defensible point of view. And thanks for the explanatory comment you added. Ihab -- Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
