On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:06:37PM -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote: > Since you can have multiple CSS classes for any one item, I'd think > it would make more sense to do > > customfield edit foo > > rather than customfield-edit-foo > > > That way you could more easily theme all custom field values or all > custom field values of a certain name, regardless of whether they're > edit or display. > > Does that seem sane?
Yes, but in turn I was worried about CSS name(space) pollution. I had it as just "foo" first, but was worried that if one does that (and "imposes" it on a stable release) then suddenly people might having parts of their existing pages tagged with CSS classes that they were using somewhere else. Plus it then means that you can't create a new custom field without wondering whether you've got some CSS with the same name. So in some ways, the more verbose customfield edit CF-foo might be a compromise, as it means that creating the custom field named "foo" doesn't mess with any existing "foo" class. Nicholas Clark _______________________________________________ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
