It's not a TLD file, since TLDs simply don't have any of this information. Instead, it's a faces-config file.
Our approach is that TLDs and JSP tags in general are secondary artifacts; faces-config is the primary artifact. -- Adam On 2/16/06, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is great Adam, > > Is the source of the docs in the link below a standard tld file? if > so that is great! > > TTFN, > > Bill Dudney > MyFaces - myfaces.apache.org > Wadi - incubator.apache.org/wadi > > > > On Feb 16, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Adam Winer wrote: > > > FWIW, one of the tools that will be coming from the ADF Faces side > > of things is a Maven 2 report that goes from our metadata to > > tagdocs that are a big improvement over the tlddoc generated > > docs. Tlddoc is pretty awful for JSF - every type is String, > > nothing is "request time", there's no list of facets or events, > > etc. The docs we will generate have a structure more like: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/bkayl > > > > I say "will" because I tried rewriting the tool a couple of weeks > > ago using the AbstractMultiPageReport base class in Maven 2.0.2 > > and ended with conclusion that this bit of Maven 2 is > > currently completely broken. Grrrr.... > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > On 2/15/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I disagree with the removal of the usage section. The usage section > >>> shows how to use the component in context which is not always > >>> obvious. > >>> I don't see a problem with making it optional for trivial > >>> components, > >>> however. > >> > >> Yes well some usage sections are better then others. I took a look > >> again after reading your comment and some of those are decent. I > >> guess we can keep/port the existing ones for now. Perhaps we can > >> consider dropping again when we have the simple examples hosted on > >> the > >> zone. The examples themselves show usage and the source code servlet > >> allows you to see the JSF. No sense maintaining two copies at that > >> point. > >> > >>> I'm also not thrilled with the removal of the syntax section, but I > >>> agree that the TLD docs could be a substitute. My preference would > >>> be to see the syntax section generated from the same source as > >>> the TLD > >>> docs, but I'm not volunteering to do the work at this time. :) > >> > >> I agree that the automatic generation would be excellent. I'm not > >> volunteering either. The TLD docs are done automatically and I > >> bet if > >> we looked carefully we would see that many of the components are > >> already out of sync since its hard to keep the documentation up to > >> date. > >> > >>> At minimum, the link to the TLD section should point directly to > >>> the TLD > >>> document for the component in question rather than to the TLD index. > >> > >> I agree. That was what I was thinking. > >> > >>> Also, before the syntax section is removed, the TLD docs must be > >>> updated to contain the same information. That's not currently the > >>> case (I used dataList as a test of this theory). > >> > >> Good point. This could be done as each component is migrated to APT. > >> > >>> -Mike > >> > >> Sean > >> > >
