[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] ANNOUNCE: JSF 2.1 Spec, Release Candidate Five

Fri Nov 5 14:53:48 EDT 2010

On 11/5/10 2:32 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:33:29 -0700, Ed Burns <edward.burns at oracle.com> said:
>>>>>>             
>
>     The unprefixed namespace, also known as the root namespace, must be
>     passed through without modification or check for validity. The
>     passing through of the root namespace must occur on any non-prefixed
>     element in a facelet page.

Sounds good.  (Sounds like we are just specifying behavior that Faclets 
has always implemented, right?)

BTW, I see that we still have <h:html> and <h:title> components in the 
latest spec.  I haven't seen an explanation for why this are 
necessary/useful.  When I asked about this, you mentioned that <h:html> 
was useful as a resource target.  However, it is not.  From our earlier 
thread:

> I see.  Unfortunately this approach is flawed.  The <html> element may 
> only contain <head> and <body> elements.  As such, "html" is not a 
> valid target for resource relocation.  We need to remove this new 
> requirement from the 2.1 specification.
>
> If <h:html> cannot serve as a resource target and if <html> is a valid 
> element in XML processing mode, I am still unclear on the value of 
> <h:html> and wonder whether this should be included in the 2.1 
> specification.
>
> On a related note, what's up with <h:title>? :-)   Can we kill this 
> off?  Or is there some reason why folks would need to use this instead 
> of <title>? 

I don't remember seeing a response to this, though with all of the 
emails lately, I may have missed it.

I still do not understand why our users would use <h:html> and <h:title> 
over <html> and <title>.  If we don't have a strong reason for why these 
components are useful, we should remove these from the specification in 
order to avoid spec/component bloat.

Andy