most welcome, glad to know that someone else out there is using dots in ids ;-)
cheers -- mona On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Daniel Rubin<[email protected]> wrote: > > ColinFine wrote: >> On Jul 21, 1:52 pm, "Alex McAuley" <[email protected]> >> 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
