Yes I agree, now I know better ;) (dots) and (colons) in ids .. it's not really their place esp. with the new Selector API. Had this API been out with HTML 4, I'm sure this would've been deprecated. On my next project, I have to let go a bit of my obsession with namespaces :)
cheers -- mona On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Rick Waldron<waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a really interesting thread... > > I don't want to retract my statement, but I dont entirely agree with what i > wrote previously (it's all part of learning right ?). > > I've discussed this with a respected colleague, and we both agree that just > because a spec "says so" doesn't make it right or "best practice", to quote > him: > > "if i start seeing <div id="iswear.iamnotaclass:honest"> I am going to take > my life" - Al MacDonald (hyper-metrix.com & @f1lt3r) > > I couldn't agree more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Alex McAuley > <webmas...@thecarmarketplace.com> wrote: >> >> Each to their own, everyone has their own coding practices and concepts. >> >> In PHP and Perl you -could- call "." a heirachial operator as it joins 2 >> nodes (strings for example) together - thus jumping from one to the next >> or >> making the bridge (to assimilate them) - which is what it does in >> Javascript >> for example (kind of)!!!!. >> >> As i said - each to their own but if CSS explicits ".className" as a >> classname then perhaps they should think about not having dots in ID's >> ([0-9Aa-Zz]\-_) would be a better fit for DOM element id's in my opinion. >> Classnames do not allow dots as far as i know. I would've thought the devs >> of JS libraries wluld have realised that perhaps 0.01% of javascript >> developers in the world would use dots and possibly didnt want the >> performance lack to accomodate these users .... Just my 2 pence worth!!! >> >> >> Alex Mcauley >> Developer >> The Vacancy Market LTD >> http://www.thevacancymarket.com >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "ColinFine" <colin.f...@pace.com> >> To: "Prototype & script.aculo.us" >> <prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:09 PM >> Subject: [Proto-Scripty] Re: selectors failing in IE8&FF3 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 21, 10:42 am, "Alex McAuley" <webmas...@thecarmarketplace.com> >> wrote: >> > Why would you want to use "." in an id.... In most web programming a "." >> > or >> > a "::" means its a node or part of a class or something. >> > >> > This makes no sense to me why anyone would want to confuse js libraries >> > and >> > possible server side backends. >> > >> I started out agreeing with you, then thought about it, and realised >> that I disagree quite strongly. Why shouldn't you use dots if you >> want? Different languagfe use symbols in different ways. In both Perl >> and PHP (two widely used languages for web programming) '.' is a >> concatenation operator, not a hierarchical one. It is now quite common >> to use dots between the parts of an email name, though the purists >> used to complain that the dot was supposed to denote hierarchy. >> >> If the HTML spec didn't allow '.', that would be different. But since >> it does you are free to use them. There's no question of 'confusing' >> js libraries or server programs unless those libraries and programs >> are wrong, in which case they ought to be fixed. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
