[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] [490-XmlViews] Chapter 11: The JSF XML View Syntax

Tue Oct 26 20:13:04 EDT 2010

Well, as far as XML is concerned, you can hang namespace definitions off 
of any element, so <html> is sufficient.

-- Blake Sullivan

On 10/26/10 3:04 PM, Andy Schwartz wrote:
> On 10/26/10 5:10 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
>> Ok, here's what we'll do for JSF XML syntax.
>>
>> <f:view xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>>         xmlns:f="http://java.sun.com/jsf/core"
>>         xmlns:h="http://java.sun.com/jsf/html">
>> <html>
>> <h:head><h:title>Title</h:title></h:head>
>> <h:body>
>>
>> <h2>HTML elements ok</h2>
>>
>> </h:body>
>> </html>
>> </f:view>
>
>
> While this is fine for cases where the page author wants to manually 
> insert an <f:view> tag, I still think that the fact that Facelets does 
> not require this is a nice perk.  We shouldn't take this shortcut away 
> from folks who happen to want to use the new XML-style syntax.
>
> Is there some reason why it wouldn't be sufficient to hang XML 
> namespace declarations off of the <html> element, eg:
>
>
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>            xmlns:f="http://java.sun.com/jsf/core"
>            xmlns:h="http://java.sun.com/jsf/html">
> <h:head><h:title>Title</h:title></h:head>
> <h:body>
>
> <h2>HTML elements ok</h2>
>
> </h:body>
> </html>
>
>> AS> As such I don't believe that we need to add yet another element.
>>
>> Ok, agreed.  It's <f:view>  If you want to do Facelets XHTML, then you
>> just put your stuff on the root <html> element.
>
> Why force folks to add an <f:view> in XML processing mode if we don't 
> have to?  Seems like a step backwards to me.  (Am I missing some 
> requirement that is driving this?)
>
>> AS> BTW, one thing that I am not totally clear on... What value does 
>> AS> <h:html> add over plain old <html>?
>>
>> It's a resource target, in addition to rendering the <html> element.
>
> Did we add a new resource target type?  Our head/body/form targets 
> were already covered by the <h:head>, <h:body> and <h:form> components.
>
>> Yes, I read Dan's initial comments but decided to go with the minimal
>> set you have seen in the design thus far.  So, I'll not be introducing
>> <f:doctype> in this revision.
>
> Does this mean that we will not render any doctype for XML-style views?
>
> Andy
>