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

Tue Dec 15 11:44:04 EST 2009

Yeah we'd have to revisit the way we do resource relocation possibly - 
or make it more intrinsic.

Andy Schwartz wrote:
> 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
>