cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Naming rule for HTML IDs generated by CForms
Date Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:40:17 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 '-'?
>>  
> 
> 
> Oh please, go read the threads.
> 
> We cannot forbid "-" in widget names, as it's used in too much 
> occasions.
Sigh, how do you know that people are not using ':' in their widget ids?
Which is starting with 2.1.8 not allowed any more...so as we don't have
problems with not allowing the ':' character in ids, I don't see a
reason why we should handle the '-' differently?
Anyways, this whole id thing is really a pita and suggestions like a
double period or trailing period are absolutely not userfriendly. It
doesn't matter how often you have to use them.

So, for clearness, I would go for a different solution but as this vote
is only about the four suggestions my vote is:

[X] "foo.bar._input" (underscore, requires to forbid it as the beginning
of widget names)


Carsten

-- 
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/

Mime
View raw message