3 ms·

If you set the same value for "class" attribute on DIV elements in the example, the generated selector (i.e. "signature") won't be unique. BTW, if the selected

by gildas 14y ago

If you set the same value for "class" attribute on DIV elements in the example, the generated selector (i.e. "signature") won't be unique. BTW, if the selected element has an "id" attribute (with -by definition- a unique value), what is the point to generate the full selector (cf. "Go to Hell" with "bbg" id in the example)?

arunoda 14y ago
You have good valid point here. for the first one it's kind of a problem. Do you have any sugessions. For the second one, answer is simple we may have several elements with same id but in different parents. That's why we need something like this. This is not 100% unique but a innocent try :)
- gildas 14y ago
  For the first problem, you could test the generated selector to verify it matches only one element. If not you can use, for example, the nth-child pseudo-class to select the right element. For the second one, specs say that the "id" value must be unique in the entire document [2]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors/#structural-pseudos http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors/#structural-pseudos [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2
  - arunoda 14y ago
    Thanks. First one seems nice. I'll implement that. But if the content is changed dynamicly we might face some issues. BTW: in reality developers do not adhere to [2] and there is no any browser restrictions for that. So I have to think beyond the spec.
    - gildas 14y ago
      > But if the content is changed dynamicly we might face some issues. Regardless the problem I was raising, if the document changes dynamically, your generated signature has great chances to fail (cf. also comment from bdunn). > in reality developers do not adhere to [2] I really hope it's not true because it would really be quite pointless. Let's try by yourself: put the same id name (e.g. "testId") on two different elements in your example and then try this code: $("#testId") It will return only one element. So you'll never be able to find the second one with a selector...
      - arunoda 14y ago
        >Regardless the problem I was raising, if the document changes dynamically, your generated signature has great chances to fail (cf. also comment from bdunn). Yes :) >It will return only one element. So you'll never be able to find the second one with a selector... Thanks. I was not aware of that. Now this encourage me even more :) If a bad programmer like me place two ids with same name. Extension developer like x did not able to get the second one. That why I need this
  - arunoda 14y ago
    updated the source according to the first recommendation.

by gildas 14y ago

arunoda 14y ago

You have good valid point here. for the first one it's kind of a problem. Do you have any sugessions. For the second one, answer is simple we may have several elements with same id but in different parents. That's why we need something like this. This is not 100% unique but a innocent try :)

gildas 14y ago
For the first problem, you could test the generated selector to verify it matches only one element. If not you can use, for example, the nth-child pseudo-class to select the right element. For the second one, specs say that the "id" value must be unique in the entire document [2]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors/#structural-pseudos http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors/#structural-pseudos [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2
- arunoda 14y ago
  Thanks. First one seems nice. I'll implement that. But if the content is changed dynamicly we might face some issues. BTW: in reality developers do not adhere to [2] and there is no any browser restrictions for that. So I have to think beyond the spec.
  - gildas 14y ago
    > But if the content is changed dynamicly we might face some issues. Regardless the problem I was raising, if the document changes dynamically, your generated signature has great chances to fail (cf. also comment from bdunn). > in reality developers do not adhere to [2] I really hope it's not true because it would really be quite pointless. Let's try by yourself: put the same id name (e.g. "testId") on two different elements in your example and then try this code: $("#testId") It will return only one element. So you'll never be able to find the second one with a selector...
    - arunoda 14y ago
      >Regardless the problem I was raising, if the document changes dynamically, your generated signature has great chances to fail (cf. also comment from bdunn). Yes :) >It will return only one element. So you'll never be able to find the second one with a selector... Thanks. I was not aware of that. Now this encourage me even more :) If a bad programmer like me place two ids with same name. Extension developer like x did not able to get the second one. That why I need this
- arunoda 14y ago
  updated the source according to the first recommendation.