Re: [jsr-314-open] [jsf2.next] <h:head> vs. <head>
On 12/15/09 10:30 AM, Andy Schwartz wrote:
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.
I've not heard
anyone complain about, but someone like Kito or David who
do a lot of training might have a better feel for the response to that.
In these case, I can see a real value-add, as they make something else
(resource relocation) much easier, so I don't mind them. It seems that
scanning the template for <head> might be an expensive and error-prone
process, but I guess that delves into implementation issues.
--
Jason Lee, SCJP
President, Oklahoma City Java Users Group
Senior Java Developer, Sun Microsystems
http://blogs.steeplesoft.com