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

Tue Dec 15 16:38:14 EST 2009

2009/12/15 Jim Driscoll <Jim.Driscoll at 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 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:clarity.training at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2009/12/15 Lincoln Baxter, III <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:lincolnbaxter at 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...
>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20091215/78cb420c/attachment.html 