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

Wed Oct 27 09:37:14 EDT 2010

>>>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:04:39 -0400, Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz at oracle.com> said:

EB> Ok, here's what we'll do for JSF XML syntax.

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

EB> <h2>HTML elements ok</h2>
EB> 
EB> </h:body>
EB> </html>
EB> </f:view>
EB> 

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

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

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

AS>       <h2>HTML elements ok</h2>

AS>     </h:body>
AS>   </html>

AS> As such I don't believe that we need to add yet another element.

This is fine and valid too.  However, I feel that if your root element
is <html> then you should be calling your page XHTML, not XML.  In any
case, what you have written above is certainly valid for a .view.xml
file or .xhtml file.

EB> Ok, agreed.  It's <f:view>  If you want to do Facelets XHTML, then you
EB> just put your stuff on the root <html> element.

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

You don't have to add it.

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

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

The "resource target type" you refer to was always just a loose and
arbitrary string that is equivalent to the QNAME of the element.  In
that sense, we did add a new resource target type.  See the renderkit
docs for javax.faces.Output javax.faces.Html

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

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

The initial requirements for what passes through and what does not,
which went into Appendix A table 1-1, didn't say anything about DOCTYPE.
XML-wise, DOCTYPE is not a processing instruction, CDATA, or comment.
Therefore, it passes through unchanged.  Do you think we need to
explicitly address doctype in Appendix A table 1-1?

Ed

-- 
| edward.burns at oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
| homepage:               | http://ridingthecrest.com/
| 11 work days until German Oracle User's Group Conference