Antonio Gallardo wrote:
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.
You missed the essence of the problem: if you add a suffix that makes
the generated id a valid widget name, then you have the possibility for
someone to write a form definition where there is a widget that has the
same name than the generated id, then leading to conflicts in the page.
That's why I proposed a character that isn't allowed in widget names.
That way, there is *no* possibility for conflicting ids.
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".
The ":" has been a valid character for ID in HTML and XML for years:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-id
- http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#id
The CSS specification says how to use '\' to escape special characters:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#q4
So writing a CSS rule for the input of widget "foo" should be
"#foo\:input { .... }"
However, f*cking IE goes in the way, and although it properly escapes
'.' (used for container widgets), it is the only one among the 4
browsers I tested that doesn't understand '\:'. That means that the
'\3A' unicode escape sequence must be used.
To test thoroughly with containers and Ajax, I added the following to
datasource_chooser_template.xml:
<style type="text/css">
#name { background: #00FF00 }
#name\3Ainput { background: #FF0000 }
#datasource\.SQL\.login { background: #00FF00 }
#datasource\.SQL\.login\3Ainput { background: #FF0000 }
</style>
This works in IE 6, Firefox 1.5rc1, Safari 2.0, Opera 8.5.
I also added
<a href="#"
onclick="document.getElementById('datasource.SQL.login:input').value =
'Yeah'; return false">Yeah</a>
Works like a charm in all tested browsers.
Now the question is: do you find the \3A quirk to be a blocking issue?
It seems to me that more often inputs in a form will be styled using
classes, so as all inputs share the same styling rule. Also, a way to
avoid the quirk is to use the ancestor selector, which works in all
tested browsers:
#datasource\.SQL\.login input { background: #FF0000 }
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...
There's no XPath construct that expects an ID as a litteral. They're
always used as string: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"bar:baz"] or id("bar:baz")
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
