Colin,
I was just thinking about your statement:
"(OTOH I wish that browsers and libraries would object to a very common
instance of invalid HTML: duplicate id's)" And how much I agree. This is the
result...
(function () {
var _domIdentities = function () {};
_domIdentities.prototype = {
test: function () {
var _error = new Error('Duplicate element ID exists'),
_elems = $(document.body).select('*[id]'),
_len = _elems.length, _temp = [], _i = 0;
for( ; _i < _len ; _i++ ) {
if ( _temp.indexOf( _elems[_i].id ) >= 0 )
throw _error + ' "' + _elems[_i].id + '"';
else
_temp.push( _elems[_i].id );
}
}
};
new _domIdentities().test();
delete _domIdentities;
})();
Nothing I'd consider perfect.... but I think its an interesting starting
point.
... perhaps if DOMNodeInserted and other mutation events where more widely
supported.
Just some zany ideas.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:31 AM, ColinFine <colin.f...@pace.com> 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.
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
