Sean, IMO, the lamenesses are that UIForm is a NamingContainer, and <f:subview> is required for includes. I argued strongly against the former during JSF 1.0, but couldn't turn the tide. The latter's been cleared up for JSF 1.2 (and despite what the spec said, <f:subview> wasn't ever *really* required), and prefixing can be turned of for UIForms too in JSF 1.2.
Subtract these two issues, and "forceId" isn't especially necessary or useful. Regards, Adam On 11/22/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any particular reason why you can't just use forceId=true for > when you want it? My thinking is that its better to give the user the > flexability to decide rather then "force" them into a particular > choice. (Which is why I think its lame that JSF alters your id when > generating the client id.) > > sean > > On 11/18/05, Travis Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Working on this ajax stuff, I got to wondering why we don't just have > > id's implemented like forceId = true? Is there any reason why we > > can't just have all id's set to the id the user specifies without > > prepending stuff to them? > > > > Travis > > >
