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

Tue Dec 15 11:30:32 EST 2009

Branching off the HTML5 thread...

Jason Lee wrote:
> On 12/15/09 9:18 AM, Ed Burns wrote:
>> Though I'm delighted to see all the traffic on this topic, I have to
>> weigh in and oppose adding many more tags.  The design focus of JSF
>> views has always been to mix template text and components.  In my
>> opinion, this is widely seen as a strength for server-side UI
>> technologies such as JSF.
>>   
> I think I agree with Ed here.  At first, I thought adding a plethora 
> of new tags might be a good idea for those case where you might want 
> to interact with that particular DOM element on the client using 
> various JSF facilities.  I think, though, the concern of an avalanche 
> of tags might be off-putting, actually feeding into the complaints 
> from some camps (I'm looking at you, Wicket people :) of tag soup.

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.

Andy