[jsr-314-open] [jsf2.next] WITHDRAWN Proposal to support newsemantic HTML5 tags

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

While I think the concept of pluggable render kits is interesting, I wonder
if the amount of overhead required to successfully provide a new render kit
for a different content type, using the same facelet layout, is too high,
and if anyone is actually using the functionality.  Is it a feature we push
that nobody is going to use?

Most sites host a separate domain to handle this type of accessibility case,
eg: .mobi, or they just use a swappable stylesheet, which is a far simpler
solution.

Accessibility for text to speech is already provided by HTML/CSS.

I think presentation is intrinsicly coupled to the view files except for
trivial use cases, or extremely over-complicated architectures.

Lincoln Baxter III
http://ocpsoft.com
http://scrumshark.com
Keep it simple.

On Dec 14, 2009 1:46 PM, "Simon Lessard" <Simon_Lessard at dmr.ca> wrote:

Well, 2 reasons:

1. It's along the line of Dan suggestion about Facelet and not pushing
direct html to the output, a different render kit might have to intercept
the ResponseWriter to tranform some of those new tags to something else. New
tags allow just that, giving the opportunity to encode the view in just
about anything. Maybe a PADF render kit using iText (althoguh that one could
deal with the HTML), or renderer generating TeX, that in turn gets turned to
PDF using some of the available engines in the endDocument call.

2. Most importantly, semantic and accessibility. A view remains a document
and providing every basic components in the HTML kit enhance that toolbox
and allows developer to add whetever they want to their view, really
expressing what is ment to be there. I'm prety sure this would also come
(especialy?) handy in composite componnet development. As for the
accessibility part, <p> != <div> != <fielset>  for a screenreader or any
other accessibility enabled device. As for the header, we could provide
auto-depth detection if not overriden using a level/depth attribute. In
pretty much all project I had to work on we had to redevelop pretty much all
those components because Facelets was not an option at the time (and
Facelets would have been to HTML coupled anyway).

Regards,

~ Simon

________________________________

From: jsr-314-open-bounces at jcp.org on behalf of Lincoln Baxter, III
Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 1:30 PM

To: jsr-314-open at jcp.org Subject: Re: [jsf2.next] WITHDRAWN
Proposal to support newse...

I'm not sure I really see the need for special tags like this. What are the
advantages of turning ev...
http://ocpsoft.com <http://ocpsoft.com/>
http://scrumshark.com <http://scrumshark.com/>

Keep it simple. On Dec 14, 2009 1:12 PM, "Dan Allen" <dan.j.allen at gmail.com>
wrote: > > JD> ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20091214/a069e183/attachment.html