Thanks Walter. If that's the only reason I'm willing to take that
risk. In my whole application I will only attach one variable, kind of
like my namespace and this will give me some convenience when
accessing that namespace. If it's conform to W3C standards and works
in all browsers, I think it's ok. But is it? Can't find any
documentation or specification on this
Luke
On Nov 21, 8:50 pm, Walter Lee Davis <wa...@wdstudio.com> wrote:
> I think that the basic reason for the separate store is to provide
> insulation from any current, past, or future browsers tramping on a
> key name you may choose today and test in some subset of all browsers.
> Browser scripting is fun enough in IE with its amusing conflation of
> Name and ID properties without getting into the weeds with a perfectly-
> safe-seeming data element being confused for some completely other
> property or method.
>
> Walter
>
> On Nov 21, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Luke wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > is there anyting wrong with extending a DOM-Object with
>
> > $('myelement').myvariable = "something";
>
> > or why is there the prototype-method store, which saves values in a
> > seperate hash?
>
> > Thank you,
> > Lukas
>
> > --
> > 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
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
> > .
--
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-scriptacul...@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.
