Also, please mention if there are any objections to using *.xml for the facelets as opposed to *.xhtml which became the facelets standard. BTW, this has been brought up to the EG and has been mentioned in the facelets mailing list that *.xml should be the default as there is no requirement that JSF pages/facelets need to produce XHTML or HTML (for example seam already has support for email and PDF output)
-Andrew On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Andrew Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > Currently the trinidad examples (trinidad-demo and trinidad-blank) > use JSP and JSPX. Just turning facelets on for JSPX files isn't going > to work as it causes faces messages due to <jsp:root> and > <jsp.derective> tags. Furthermore, many pages use jsp include tags. To > show proper support of JSF 2, we should not be supporting JSP in > Trinidad's demo IMO (also some features of JSF 2 require facelets to > be used AFAIK). > > I recommend: > > 1) Migrating all *.jspx to *.xml (I'd prefer to not use *.xhtml as > discussed many times in the facelets user's list and on the 314 EG ML) > 2) Replace include jsp tags with ui:include > 3) Replace jsp:root with ui:composition > > Opinions? > > -Andrew >
