Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 04.11.2005 02:09, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Yep. The "." and "/" are already checked in
AbstractWidgetDefinition.setCommonProperties(). We just need to add
":".
Why we need to use a symbol at any cost ? Can we use a simple word
prefix? As cform-[widgetID]?
If you prefix the widget id with a simple word (your proposal) or
suffix it with another one (Sylvain's way), with both you have to care
about the validness of user-chosen ids. To check them easily you use
the unique separator.
Agreed. I think checking a prefix is often faster than checking a suffix
in a string. On the other side a prefix can rest code readibility. IMHO,
the first is better for generated (X)HTML code.
The suffix is also ok. The problem was that a "-input" suffix is too
generic and seems to broke some javascript code somewhere. ajax is the
main reason for change? If yes, then we can use "-cf-input" as the
suffix or something like that.
I am just afraid of adding a ":" in the name. Maybe does not make sense.
Here are some points:
1-It can breaks compatibility somewhere. As sample, all browsers claims
to support CSS standards. The point is at wich level and how they
interpret the word "support".
2-Being in a xpath 1.0 namespace nightmare for months. I am not sure if
suddenly somebody will need to give a meaning to the ":". I know it is
very remote, but...
For the records, I don't have any javascript that need to be reviewed if
we change this behavior. It is just a technical comment.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
