Re: [jsr-314-open] [jsf2.next] <h:head> vs. <head>
2009/12/15 Jim Driscoll <Jim.Driscoll(a)sun.com>
Could someone please file this as a spec RFE?
Lincoln?!? You were the last to respond, buddy. :)
david
We'll have to do a performance test to really see the implications, but it
does seem like it would be useful to have this.
Jim
On 12/15/09 12:04 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> I'd even like to see it add <head> if not provided. Would that be too
> overreaching?
>
> Lincoln Baxter III
> http://ocpsoft.com
> http://scrumshark.com
> Keep it simple.
>
> On Dec 15, 2009 1:02 PM, "David Geary" <clarity.training(a)gmail.com
>> <mailto:clarity.training@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/12/15 Lincoln Baxter, III <lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com
>> <mailto:lincolnbaxter@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>> > > It would be nice if it "just worked", and jsf would
automatically
>> add/detect he right place to l...
>>
>> +1. I always pitch h:head and h:body as necessary to coordinate with
>> resource relocation from h:outputScript and h:outputStylesheet, but it
>> would be great if you could just use <head> and <body> instead, and
>> have everything work.
>>
>>
>> david
>>
>> > > Lincoln Baxter III > http://ocpsoft.com > http://scrumshark.com
>
>> Keep it simple. >> >> On Dec 1...
>>
>>
>>
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 2.6 KB)