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/
