Re: [jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] [490-XmlViews] Chapter 11: The JSF XML View Syntax
On 10/19/10 1:06 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
Executive Summary:
* Andy comments on the new Chapter 11, basically stating that we don't
need it.
Yep.
* Ed replies stating that that Dan had requested full XML syntax,
but
that Ed is willing to remove chapter 11 for now and simply rely on
what we have in the appendix regarding the facelets-processing elemens
in the faces-config-extension element.
Works for me. :-)
AS> I didn't realize that we were introducing a new VDL. I
thought that our
AS> efforts have been focused on allowing the existing Facelets VDL to be
AS> more XML-friendly by providing control over XML processing behavior.
This is what Dan Allen has wanted all along. It was very clearly stated
in his requests and emails to this list.
Although I followed/participated in these threads and discussed with Dan
multiple times in person, I never realized that he was pushing for a new
VDL. I always thought that this was about making Facelets more
XML-friendly as opposed to replacing Facelets with a new VDL. Ah well,
I suppose either approach can work, though personally I prefer sticking
with Facelets as our main VDL.
AS> The differences that we have been discussing between legacy
AS> xhtml-centric Facelets and the new xml-centric approach are related to
AS> processing of XML-centric constructs such as CDATA blocks, XML
AS> declarations, processing instructions, etc... I didn't realize that we
AS> would also be changing how HTML template text/tags were handled. If
AS> this means that you cannot use HTML elements in the new XML views, my
AS> guess is that nobody will be interested in adopting this approach.
I thought so too, but that seems to be what Dan wanted so that's what I
put in the spec.
Hrm.... I thought that Dan stated the opposite of this. Looking back at
Dan's original "[jsf2next] might as well face it, Facelets is XML" email
(12/11/09), I see these recommendations:
So how to we move forward? We have to accept these truths (well, some
are recommendations):
1) A Facelets document is XML, plain and simple
2) The extension for a Facelets document becomes .view.xml (DOT view
DOT xml)
2) A Facelets document produces a component tree; verbatim content can
still be wrapped automatically as UIInstruction fragments, that does work
3) All markup declarations should be produced by the component tree
(e.g., XML declaration, doctype, namespaces, CDATA, XML comments, etc)
This means we need the following tags:
f:document
f:doctype
f:comment (why not, it is just xml)
f:cdata
(The prefix is debatable, I'm just throwing it out there)
The markup declarations in the template DO NOT PASS THROUGH!
The second #2 :-) says: "verbatim content can still be wrapped
automatically as UIInstruction fragments, that does work", which
contradicts the behavior specified in Chapter 11.
Unless anyone disagrees, I'll remove chapter 11, perhaps we can
revisit
this at such time as JBoss is able to contribute again to these
discussions.
Sounds good. Our recent changes address Dan's #1, both #2s and parts of
#3. Seems like a good start for 2.1. We can do more in future spec
revs, hopefully with the involvement of our JBoss friends. :-)
Andy
Ed