On Jul 21, 1:52 pm, "Alex McAuley" <webmas...@thecarmarketplace.com>
> Each to their own, everyone has their own coding practices and concepts.
Indeed. I'm not about to start using '.' or ':' in ID's myself.

> 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)!!!!.

I think this is a perverse argument, but I'm not going to get excited
about it.

> 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!!!
I think, as Rick implied above, that the designers of CSS selectors
were ill-advised to use symbols which were permitted in id's (I'm
assuming that the HTML spec came before the CSS one, but I haven't
checked). But formally, there are no contexts in which these are

But I think it would be wrong for JS libraries to refuse to work just
because you had made certain (valid) choices in your HTML.
(OTOH I wish that browsers and libraries would object to a very common
instance of invalid HTML: duplicate id's)

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to