Re: [jsr-314-open] [jsf2.next] <h:head> vs. <head>

Tuesday, 5 January 2010

...
>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:30:32 -0500, Andy Schwartz
<andy.schwartz(a)oracle.com&gt; said: 
AS> I've been wondering whether the requirement to use <h:head> instead of 
AS> plain old <head> (eg. in order to pick up the jsf.js when using 
AS> <f:ajax>) might be an annoyance for folks who prefer the .xhtml/template 
AS> text approach of view definition.  If this is annoying, we could 
AS> consider removing this requirement, eg. might be able to transparently 
AS> turn HTML <head>/<body> into the corresponding components.  

For the record, we prototyped this way back in February of 2008 and ran
into some trouble, but I think it could have been worked around.  

...
>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:26:53 -0800, Jim Driscoll
<Jim.Driscoll(a)Sun.COM&gt; said: 
JD> Could someone please file this as a spec RFE?
JD> We'll have to do a performance test to really see the implications, but 
JD> it does seem like it would be useful to have this.

Roger created 702, which I've marked as a dup of Dan's 700.  Also
important is the existing 468, which is for people that want to do their
own <head> yet put something like <h:relocationTarget> in there.
Dreamweaver types wanted this.

Ed

-- 
| ed.burns(a)sun.com  | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage:         | http://ridingthecrest.com/

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009