> You shouldn't have to use <f:subview> in those cases; somehow, > <f:subview> got tangled up with includes, but its real purpose in > life is being a NamingContainer, so the combo of "gimme an > <f:subview>, but don't prepend its id" doesn't make sense. > Prepending IDs is what <f:subview> is for.
So is that whole subview/server-side include issue been resolved in the 1.2 spec? I know there was talk of it but I didn't find anything concrete in the early draft. If you no longer have to use subview for includes, then I agree completely with your argument. > -- Adam sean
