cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <sylv...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Naming rule for HTML IDs generated by CForms
Date Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:26:23 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>  
>>> So please choose one proposal below:
>>>
>>> [ ] "foo.bar:input"  (colon, not CSS-friendly because of IE)
>>> [ ] "foo.bar..input" (double period)
>>> [ ] "foo.bar.input." (trailing period)
>>> [ ] "foo.bar._input" (underscore, requires to forbid it as the 
>>> beginning of widget names)
>>>
>>>     
>> Sorry for stepping in very late, but to me all of these solutions look
>> rather ugly. If I only have the choice between the four from above, I
>> would go for the underscore solution.
>>
>> But why can't we just use "bar-input" and forbid to use id's that end
>> with "-input"? Or forbid the use of '-'?
>>   
Correcting some typos that may lead to confusion...

> Oh please, go read the threads.
>
> We cannot forbid "-" in widget names, as it's used in too much 
> occasions. And the problem is not only "-input" but also "-cal", 
> "-help", "-toolbar", "-combobox", "-resize-handle" or "-whatever" will 
> come out from advanced stylings.
>
> So we need a *general* rule for all generated IDs that ensures no one 
> will ever conflict with widget names. We then structurally avoid and 
> problem in the future, whatever mapping people invent between a widget 
> and its HTML rendering.

... will avoid _any_ problem...

> Also, if you read the thread, you will notice that this notation is 
> almost transparent to _user_ (not styling writers) as the use of these 
> generated IDs will mostly be restricted to plug additional behaviour 
> to inputs and in that case they can use form.inputs['foo.bar'] which 
> is totally independent from the naming rule used.

... will mostly be _limited_ to plugging additional behaviour ... : 
there is no structural restriction, but the simple observation of the 
frequent use cases.

> The other case where these IDs may be used is for CSS rules, but I 
> consider that this will be very unfrequent as most often, CSS class 
> selectors will be used to style a whole family of widgets rather than 
> individual ones, for which they can use a specific class anyway. And 
> even for an individual widget, it's IMO better to define an additional 
> CSS class rather than using the full ID, as it decouples class rules 
> from widget names.
>
> My initial proposal, using ':' was IMO the cleanest, but some issues 
> were raised with the way this character has to be escaped in CSS rules 
> with IE. Even if, again, I think CSS class selectors will be used much 
> more often than CSS ID selectors.

Yeah. I more and more think we should use ':' and ask people to use CSS 
class rules instead of ID rules.

Sylvain

-- 
Sylvain Wallez                        Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~sylvain     http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member     Research & Technology Director


Mime
View raw message