I know i wouldn't call them "weird", but i would for sure classify using something like "user.name" as *problematic* or even "unnecessary pain in the a__ as a programmer living and dying by jQuery", lol...
whatever though... to each their own.... that's the beauty of this field of work :-) On May 27, 7:09 pm, RobG <rg...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > On May 28, 4:07 am, Karl Swedberg <k...@englishrules.com> wrote: > > > On May 26, 2009, at 9:05 PM, RobG wrote: > > > > The choice is clear - the OP can simply stop using jQuery selectors > > > for those elements, or stop using jQuery (or any other CSS selector- > > > based framework) at all. > > > Really? That's the only choice? As others have already noted, you can > > simply escape the "." > > Which infers "simply" hard coding all such IDs in the script, not a > sustainable strategy in a non-trivial application where the ID is > likely more efficiently passed as a parameter and therefore not a > viable option IMO. The solution below doesn't require any hard coding > and conforms to the first choice proposed above. > > >http://docs.jquery.com/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_select_an_... > > Yes, we've seen that earlier in the thread. I commented on it. > > > > Given that it's an ID, the OP could use: > > > > $(document.getElementById('user.name'))... > > > > Which is likely faster anyway. > > > True, but the speed difference is likely negligible. > > The comment about speed is primarily to indicate that it won't be > slower, so the option of quoting the period character has nothing to > recommend it. The OP is, of course, free to chose whatever option > suits. > > > > The jQuery > > > documentation does, after all, refer to them as "weird" and "special" > > > characters. > > > If you think there is more appropriate terminology, feel free to > > change it. The documentation site is a wiki. > > I'd rather let it stand. It reflects the attitude of the author and > seems to have the support of at two posters here. > > -- > Rob
