Re: [jsr-314-open] [jsf2.next] <h:head> vs. <head>
Yeah we'd have to revisit the way we do resource relocation possibly -
or make it more intrinsic.
Andy Schwartz wrote:
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