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

Tue Oct 26 22:19:12 EDT 2010

I agree.  Every single generated HTML document needs a doc-type.

I was proposing something like this:

<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">
<h:doctype>html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-  transitional.dtd"</h:doctype>
<html>
<h:head><h:title>Title</h:title></h:head>
<h:body>
<h2>HTML elements ok</h2>
</h:body>
</html>
</f:view>

There a re a bunch of different ways that a docType tag could be 
implemented, but I thought this might be the easiest for customers who 
are really just copying and pasting and don't want to know what the 
different parts of the DOCTYPE mean.

-- Blake Sullivan

On 10/26/10 7:02 PM, Cay Horstmann wrote:
> Just from the point of view of namespaces, you can certainly use html
> as the root. The difficulty is the doctype. An XML processing tool has
> every reason to expect that a document starting with
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
>        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
>
> is a conforming document.
>
> However, a JSF page is not--it aims to produce such a document (at
> least when rendered to XHTML).
>
> That's why today you get wiggly underlines in editors, exceptions in
> XSLT scripts, and so on, when you try to process JSF pages.
>
> So, the DOCTYPE needs to be output, not included. That could be done
> with attributes of a top level element or with a child element.
>
> That means the top element should not be html, but it could be h:html,
> or, of course, f:view.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cay
>
> NB. Not having an option for rendering a DOCTYPE would be bad--we want
> users to be able to produce proper XHTML. For one thing, if you omit
> the DOCTYPE, you can trigger quirks mode in commonly used browsers.