[jsr-314-open] [jsf2.next] <h:head> vs. <head>

Tue Dec 15 18:41:19 EST 2009

If you automatically add a head you would have to add some generic or  
implicit title too, so I think the head and title should be added by  
the template author always.
(Also while I haven't used DreamWeaver for years now, the last time I  
used it, while it was forgiving on custom-tags, it constantly added  
html,head,title and body to make it a HTML-Page)

to have <head> and <body> be translated to h:head and h:body you just  
have to provide a Facelet TagDecorator (about 15-25 loc) (for now it  
can be added in web.xml) that will replace these two tags at template  
compilation time, so the performance hit should be minimal.
So the question is, should that TagDecorator be part of an  
implementation (or in case it is part of an implementation, should it  
be part of the compiler, as then there is no need to have it in a  
Decorator)

Imre

On 15.12.2009, at 21:04, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:

> I'd even like to see it add <head> if not provided. Would that be  
> too overreaching?
>
> Lincoln Baxter III
> http://ocpsoft.com
> http://scrumshark.com
> Keep it simple.
>
>
>> On Dec 15, 2009 1:02 PM, "David Geary" <clarity.training at gmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/12/15 Lincoln Baxter, III <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com>
>> > > It would be nice if it "just worked", and jsf would  
>> automatically add/detect he right place to l...
>>
>> +1. I always pitch h:head and h:body as necessary to coordinate  
>> with resource relocation from h:outputScript and  
>> h:outputStylesheet, but it would be great if you could just use  
>> <head> and <body> instead, and have everything work.
>>
>>
>> david
>> > > Lincoln Baxter III > http://ocpsoft.com > http://scrumshark.com  
>> > Keep it simple. >> >> On Dec 1...
>>
>>
>