ColinFine wrote:
> On Jul 21, 1:52 pm, "Alex McAuley" <webmas...@thecarmarketplace.com>
> wrote:
>> 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.
Well...  You have no idea how grateful I am you guys discussed this
problem right now.  Yes, I do have dots in some of my ids because it's
the way the corresponding objects are being referenced at the server
backend, so it just seemed sooo convenient.  Me, a case for a
psychiatrist, out of laziness? Maybe... ;-)

I made the switch from Prototype 1.6.0.2 to 1.6.0.3 and a few down()
calls stopped working for no obvious reasons.  And it turned out to be
just the problem you were discussing here.  Would have taken me ages to
track it down by myself.

I just wanted to let you know, and to say thank you.  Hope you don't mind.

Have fun
----Daniel



>> 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
> ambiguous.
> 
> 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 
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to