While I think the concept of pluggable render kits is interesting, I wonder if the amount of overhead required to successfully provide a new render kit for a different content type, using the same facelet layout, is too high, and if anyone is actually using the functionality.  Is it a feature we push that nobody is going to use?

Most sites host a separate domain to handle this type of accessibility case, eg: .mobi, or they just use a swappable stylesheet, which is a far simpler solution.

Accessibility for text to speech is already provided by HTML/CSS.

I think presentation is intrinsicly coupled to the view files except for trivial use cases, or extremely over-complicated architectures.

Lincoln Baxter III
http://ocpsoft.com
http://scrumshark.com
Keep it simple.

On Dec 14, 2009 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).

Regards,

~ Simon

________________________________

From: jsr-314-open-bounces@jcp.org on behalf of Lincoln Baxter, III
Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 1:30 PM

To: jsr-314-open@jcp.org Subject: Re: [jsr-314-open] [jsf2.next] WITHDRAWN Proposal to support newse..

I'm not sure I really see the need for special tags like this. What are the advantages of turning ev...

http://ocpsoft.com <http://ocpsoft.com/>
http://scrumshark.com <http://scrumshark.com/>

Keep it simple. On Dec 14, 2009 1:12 PM, "Dan Allen" <dan.j.allen@gmail.com> wrote: > > JD> ...