10:28 p.m.
Hi guys,
Right, but that's the leaky abstraction. We've more or less standardized (it
is the default extension, after all) on .xhtml, but XHTML is not
extensible.
So let's just call it what it is, XML.
Of course, I recognize that we can send other things to the browser. In
Seam we send e-mails, create PDFs, create RSS, create images, and create
excel documents. The point I'm making is that if the source document can
transform, then the most logical thing to call the source is XML, not XHTML.
The later implies some relationship with a particular variety of XML, and
specially one that browsers consume, confusing the whole matter.
>
> So we are using a document with an XHTML doctype, and XML declaration, XML
> namespaces (which XHTML does not support), yet no XML schema to back it. We
> are in serious limbo. Do you realize how strange it is to use .xhtml to
> produce an ATOM feed? And we wonder why the tools are having trouble
> supporting this (okay, NetBeans figured it out, but still).
>
> Rename the extension. :) Does that help? j/k
>
It does, quite a lot. But it needs to be official, not just a personal
change that is made in development.
>
> I'd like to understand what benefit we're getting by adding more
> complexity (proposed below) and potentially taking a performance hit
> (although perhaps some of the schema stuff can be turned off). Perhaps it's
> worth it. But as a non-IDE guy, I'm struggling to see just how much (if
> any) value this adds. Are the benefits theoretical? Are they material?
> Does is speed development for the end user, or just make us sleep better at
> night knowing we can call it true XML? I'm not against anything proposed
> here, but at the same time I don't feel like I understand that value-add
> we're shooting for. Can someone please take the time to explain the pros
> (and possibly cons) of the proposed changes? From what I gather, it's all
> for the benefit of leveraging existing tools?
>
Understand that first and foremost, this is a semantic change. It is an
acknowledgement, by the spec, that the source documents are just XML.
Nothing more. I can't see there being any performance change and probably a
minial implementation change. What will get fixed almost immediately are the
problems we are having with doctype declarations, XML declarations and
CDATA, because we are getting source and output mixed up right now. The XML
should describe what should be produced, not just pass through stuff these
critical aspects of the output.
My point about the XSD is an add-on, of course. You don't have to have it,
but it will sure benefit people with XML editors a whole bunch. The point
is, if we treat these documents as XML documents, and not some strange
hybrid of XHTML and XML component tags, then we can leverage all the
existing XML tools on the planet to edit, transform and interpret these
documents. When I type "vim home.xhtml" it just doesn't work like if I
typed
"vim home.view.xml". It makes a difference.
I agree with the notion of having a .xml extension for Facelets pages, and
also with not passing the meta-data to the output. I think the performance
hit is minimal, and it definitely brings us one step up the abstraction
ladder. However, I want this to be optional - you should be allowed to be
both. While Jacob did say on his blog not to mix the two things, he still
had this jsfc-feature in Facelets, cause some people don´t want/need to
abstract away from XHTML. And I believe we should keep it like this for the
small and simple project (cause if we face it, passing the metadata with a
new set of components is additional complexity which we don´t need for the
simple case).
regards,
Martin