[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] [490-XmlViews] Chapter 11: The JSF XML View Syntax

Tue Oct 26 18:04:39 EDT 2010

On 10/26/10 5:10 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
> Ok, here's what we'll do for JSF XML syntax.
>
> <f:view xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>         xmlns:f="http://java.sun.com/jsf/core"
>         xmlns:h="http://java.sun.com/jsf/html">
>   <html>
>     <h:head><h:title>Title</h:title></h:head>
>     <h:body>
>
>       <h2>HTML elements ok</h2>
>
>     </h:body>
>   </html>
> </f:view>
>   

While this is fine for cases where the page author wants to manually 
insert an <f:view> tag, I still think that the fact that Facelets does 
not require this is a nice perk.  We shouldn't take this shortcut away 
from folks who happen to want to use the new XML-style syntax.

Is there some reason why it wouldn't be sufficient to hang XML namespace 
declarations off of the <html> element, eg:

  <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
            xmlns:f="http://java.sun.com/jsf/core"
            xmlns:h="http://java.sun.com/jsf/html">
    <h:head><h:title>Title</h:title></h:head>
    <h:body>

      <h2>HTML elements ok</h2>

    </h:body>
  </html>

> AS> As such I don't believe that we need to add yet another element.
>
> Ok, agreed.  It's <f:view>  If you want to do Facelets XHTML, then you
> just put your stuff on the root <html> element.
>   

Why force folks to add an <f:view> in XML processing mode if we don't 
have to?  Seems like a step backwards to me.  (Am I missing some 
requirement that is driving this?)

> AS> BTW, one thing that I am not totally clear on... What value does 
> AS> <h:html> add over plain old <html>?
>
> It's a resource target, in addition to rendering the <html> element.
>   

Did we add a new resource target type?  Our head/body/form targets were 
already covered by the <h:head>, <h:body> and <h:form> components.

> Yes, I read Dan's initial comments but decided to go with the minimal
> set you have seen in the design thus far.  So, I'll not be introducing
> <f:doctype> in this revision.

Does this mean that we will not render any doctype for XML-style views?

Andy