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<dru...@dimedis.de> wrote:
>
> 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