[jsr-314-open] Facelets: XHTML vs. XML

[David Geary]

2009/5/10 Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com>

>
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM, David Geary <clarity.training at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 2009/5/7 Norbert Truchsess <norbert.truchsess at t-online.de>
>>
>>> you can ommit the xml-declaration being passed through by using
>>> ui:composition:
>>>
>>> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
>>> <ui:composition xmlns:ui="http://java.sun.com/jsf/facelets">
>>>      xmlns:f="http://java.sun.com/jsf/core"
>>>     xmlns:af="http://xmlns.oracle.com/adf/faces/rich">
>>>   <f:view>
>>>    <af:document/>
>>>  </f:view>
>>> </ui:composition>
>>
>>
>> Yes, and this should be a recommended practice, should it not?
>>
>> However, the preceeding fragment is XML, not XHTML. If you have a view
>> implemented as a composition, and you reference it as an action of a button
>> or link, the corresponding file must have a .xhtml extension, or the
>> navigation handler won't find it. IOW...
>>
>> <h:commandButton ... action="welcome"/>
>>
>> ...means the navigation handler will look for welcome.xhtml. If you name
>> the file welcome.xml, you get an error message at runtime. But if
>> welcome.xhtml uses a composition, like the preceeding code fragment, it's
>> not an XHTML file, it's XML. Ugh.
>>
>> Should the navigation handler also look for welcome.xml, or is that too
>> naiive of a fix?
>>
>
> Why don't you just make the javax.faces.DEFAULT_SUFFIX .xml?
>

I thought about that, but it begs the question: why is the default suffix
xhtml to begin with? Shouldn't it really be XML?


> I suppose you want to have a gradual migration.
>

Nope, I just want compelling examples for Core JSF. :)

In that case, why can't JSF support multiple extensions, searched in
> priority order. I guess that is something an impl could provide (since
> migrations are something that you might look to a vendor to help you solve).
> The spec should assume you are using a single type (I guess).
>

Sounds like a good idea to support multiple extensions. Why should the spec
assume a single type--what's the advantage to that over multiple types?

Thanks,


david

>
>
> -Dan
>
> --
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
>
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan
>
> NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
> basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
> from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
> it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
> caught in the spam filters.  Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
> you feel that it did not reach my attention.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20090510/c5dbdff6/attachment.html