I don’t really what we call this, but I think the following is important:
I would like an option for the following: 1. Ability to set an id in mxml-only 2. Ability set HTML ids 3. Have the compiler check that HTML ids are not used more than once. > On May 21, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > > > On 5/21/17, 1:38 AM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I like the idea. Sencha follows a similar pattern as far as I remember. I >> don't like mxmlID. Everything in MXML is MXML. I would go with 'localId', >> for the one that doesn't translate to HTML, and 'id' for the one that >> does. >> Also, there's nothing preventing an AS3 class from accessing the so called >> 'mxmlID'. > > I don't care too much what we call this property, but I cannot think of a > scenario where someone would write 'mxmlID' from an AS3 class. Instead, I > think you will always access the referenced object by its assigned name. > IOW: > > ---- Foo.mxml ---- > <SomeBaseClass> > <SomeClass mxmlID="bar" someProperty="baz" /> > </SomeBaseClass> > > > > Means that you will write "bar.someProperty". In fact, it might be > possible for "mxmlID" or "localID" to be a pseudo-property and not > actually a property on the object. We already do this for "includeIn" and > "excludeFrom" in states. These properties are truly MXML-only and not > ever set on the object. > > If we want to be more descriptive, we could call it "documentID" or even > "documentVariableName" or "mxmlDocumentVariableName" which is actually > what it does. > > Thoughts? > -Alex >
