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

Wed Dec 16 11:21:14 EST 2009

I've filed this as "Implicit Resource Relocation":
https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=702

-roger

David Geary wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Jim Driscoll <Jim.Driscoll at sun.com 
> <mailto:Jim.Driscoll at sun.com>>
>
>     Could someone please file this as a spec RFE?
>
>
> Lincoln?!? You were the last to respond, buddy. :)
>
>
> david
>  
>
>
>     We'll have to do a performance test to really see the
>     implications, but it does seem like it would be useful to have this.
>
>     Jim
>
>
>     On 12/15/09 12:04 PM, 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
>             <mailto:clarity.training at gmail.com>
>             <mailto:clarity.training at gmail.com
>             <mailto:clarity.training at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>             2009/12/15 Lincoln Baxter, III <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com
>             <mailto:lincolnbaxter at gmail.com>
>             <mailto:lincolnbaxter at gmail.com
>             <mailto: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...
>
>
>