[jsr-314-open] [jsf2.next] <h:head> vs. <head>
Branching off the HTML5 thread...
Jason Lee wrote:
On 12/15/09 9:18 AM, Ed Burns wrote:
> Though I'm delighted to see all the traffic on this topic, I have to
> weigh in and oppose adding many more tags. The design focus of JSF
> views has always been to mix template text and components. In my
> opinion, this is widely seen as a strength for server-side UI
> technologies such as JSF.
>
I think I agree with Ed here. At first, I thought adding a plethora
of new tags might be a good idea for those case where you might want
to interact with that particular DOM element on the client using
various JSF facilities. I think, though, the concern of an avalanche
of tags might be off-putting, actually feeding into the complaints
from some camps (I'm looking at you, Wicket people :) of tag soup.
I've been wondering whether the requirement to use <h:head> instead of
plain old <head> (eg. in order to pick up the jsf.js when using
<f:ajax>) might be an annoyance for folks who prefer the .xhtml/template
text approach of view definition. If this is annoying, we could
consider removing this requirement, eg. might be able to transparently
turn HTML <head>/<body> into the corresponding components. However, I
don't have a good feeling for whether this issue is significant... It
is not an issue for my use cases since we tend to stick to higher-level
component abstractions rather than template text, but while we are on
the topic of components vs. template text it seemed like a good time to
raise this question.
Andy