[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       xml-cocoon-dev
Subject:    Re: Other ID naming proposals (was Re: CForms widget ID naming)
From:       Ugo Cei <ugo () apache ! org>
Date:       2005-11-05 10:20:09
Message-ID: 8A3B75B1-F40A-46AC-A31E-7EEE69A7DA66 () apache ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


Il giorno 05/nov/05, alle ore 08:46, Sylvain Wallez ha scritto:

>> So let's make other proposals. Let's consider wiget  
>> "foo.bar" (e.g. a fd:field in a fd:group) and the ID of its <input>.
>> - "foo.bar..input": the '.' is doubled, which can never conflict  
>> with a widget's full name
>> - "foo.bar._input": generated element's name starts with a  
>> character that we can forbid as the first character of widget names
>>
>> I prefer the first one (double '.') which is IMO more readable  
>> than the second.
>
> Another one, which looks more natural: "foo.bar.input.": the  
> trailing '.' ensures it cannot conflict with a widget's full name

The fact that it is not that readable might be a plus. The problem  
with double dots or a dot at the end is that it's easy to miss when  
reading the code. an extra '_' sticks out more and won't be missed as  
easily.

	Ugo


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]