whoops, +1 on *.xml
-M On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Andrew Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
