That approach is only more efficient because the original design was
lacking.
Also, you can just use the starts(^) attribute selector $("div
[id^='event-phase']")
to retrieve all IDs that start with 'event-phase'.
You don't get to make up new meaning for existing attributes because
you think it should work that way. (well you can do whatever you want
but
it's not a practice people learning HTML should adopt unless they
don't care
about valid and/or semantic markup)
rel is for linking external documents, not describing a relationship
between 2 nodes.
On Mar 31, 2:42 pm, Eric Garside <gars...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right, but the problems with that approach is inefficiency. It's more
> efficient to grab the entire set of elements via $('.event-phase') and
> comparing their "rel" attribute than it is to throw a loop around $
> ('.event-phase-' + i);
>
> I use ref/rel for the same basic semantic ideas behind their ascribed
> meaning. In implementations of code I've done, I try and use "ref" for
> any situation where the element is referencing an action or event
> which the element is a target of, and rel for situations where the
> element is referencing a target action or event. I think one of the
> larger problems here is attempting to, efficiently, get enhanced
> functionality out of XHTML, which is still very basic when it comes to
> element properties and relationships of dom elements.
>
> It's a shame there isn't a slushy attribute to utilize for storing
> information that has nothing to do with markup or presentation, but
> rather a strong binding to javascript. Classes do a decent job for
> identification, but there's no real good element attribute to use for
> configurations of elements. Perhaps sometime in the future there will
> be a configuration attribute we can use for this sort of affair that
> will bring both optimized functionality and strictly valid code.
>
> On Mar 31, 4:13 pm, "Mauricio \(Maujor\) Samy Silva"
>
> <css.mau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Is there any major problems you're aware of with this kind of dom
> > >pollution that have a negative impact on ease or performance?
>
> > My thoughts:
>
> > Firstly: Validate!
> > But I think that negative impact on whatever isn't the point.
> > Suppose:
> > Option 1 - <font size="7"><b>Heading level 1</font></b>
> > Option 2 - <h1>Heading level 1</h1>
> > What option should we use?
>
> > So, the point goes beyond validation: It's a semantic issue too.
>
> > Specs says:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/links.html#adef-rel
> > rel attribute: "This attribute describes the relationship from the current
> > document to the anchor specified by the href attribute"
>
> > and says more:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/index/attributes.html
>
> > rel attribute is allowed for A and LINK elements only
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > ><div class="event-phase" rel="1"></div>
> > > <div class="event-phase" rel="2"></div>
> > > <div class="event-phase" rel="3"></div>
> > > Instead of
> > > <div id="event-phase-1"></div>
> > > <div id="event-phase-2"></div>
> > > <div id="event-phase-3"></div>
>
> > I think that 2nd approach is better not only because validades but it is a
> > easy way to target each element using a counter in the loop.
> > Something like:
>
> > $('.event-phase-' + i)
>
> > PS: If you have control over the id name use a shorter one like: evph1,
> > evph2 etc...
>
> > Regards
> > Maurício
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
