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

[Alexandr Smirnov]

Is even javax.faces.DEFAULT_SUFFIX necessary for Facelets pages ? It
comes historically from the Jsp world, there that was necessary to
separate JSF request and page rendering. Because Facelets does not
dispatch to pages at all, it would be even better to omit suffix changes
at all. In addition to simplified viewId processing it also resolves
page source code protection.

Dan Allen wrote:
> 
> 
>             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?
> 
> 
> That's what I've been trying to say all along. I don't know why we don't
> just adopt the suffix .view.xml. We could just do .xml, but I fear that
> would seem a bit too generic. Either way, though, would at least get us
> away from this notion that the templates are XHTML, which they are not.
> They *sometimes* produce XHTML, but I have found them to also be very
> good for producing RSS and ATOM feeds.
> 
> -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.