On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Simon Lessard <Simon_Lessard@dmr.ca> wrote:

Well, 2 reasons:

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.

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).