<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Simon Lessard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Simon_Lessard@dmr.ca">Simon_Lessard@dmr.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Well, 2 reasons:<br>
<br>
1. It's along the line of Dan suggestion about Facelet and not pushing direct html to the output, a different render kit might have to intercept the ResponseWriter to tranform some of those new tags to something else. New tags allow just that, giving the opportunity to encode the view in just about anything. Maybe a PADF render kit using iText (althoguh that one could deal with the HTML), or renderer generating TeX, that in turn gets turned to PDF using some of the available engines in the endDocument call.<br>
<br>
2. Most importantly, semantic and accessibility. A view remains a document and providing every basic components in the HTML kit enhance that toolbox and allows developer to add whetever they want to their view, really expressing what is ment to be there. I'm prety sure this would also come (especialy?) handy in composite componnet development. As for the accessibility part, <p> != <div> != <fielset> for a screenreader or any other accessibility enabled device. As for the header, we could provide auto-depth detection if not overriden using a level/depth attribute In pretty much all project I had to work on we had to redevelop pretty much all those components because Facelets was not an option at the time (and Facelets would have been to HTML coupled anyway).<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>The topic in this thread is bleeding slightly into the "Facelets is XML" thread. I want to clarify that by requesting to have the Facelets template treated as a generic XML document, I'm not suggesting that we fill the entire XML document with component tags. That would be throwing away the most useful feature of Facelets, which is to wrap and output inline XML markup. My point is that the inline markup is not necessarily XHTML, it is just some XML langauge, which most of the time happens to be in the HTML family.<br>
<br>I recognize that every template is likely going to be fairly render-kit specific. The point I'm making is that the Facelets XML language *itself* should not be trying to act like XHTML (and sending headers and CDATA it shouldn't be sending).<br>
<br>-Dan<br><br>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>