would it be a huge change to allow one or more configurable
extensions, so a project could define (in its *Module) or in its
web.xml file or somewhere what .*ml files it will consider in what
order.
I realize that's a small pain, and I do worry about slowing things
down with a try-this-then-that result, but one may have both xhtml and
SVN and WML in the same app, and the appropriate editors for each
template might be different, so a unitary one isn't optimal.
I suppose having a default which is altered by adding an
@Template(extension=".wml") attribute on the component class might be
a way to go. It would be stylistically consistent with other T5isms,
I think.
Christian (Gruber).
On 17-Sep-07, at 7:53 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
I'm on the fence on this; I agree that .xml might be a more
appropriate
extension, or something Tapestry specific, such as ".tml".
Certainly we're
starting see people want to use Tapestry to create non-HTML, such as
SVG and
something related to Facebook.
On the other hand, the easy integration with editors should not be
discounted.
Let see what others think ... it's not a huge change at this point
to change
the extension.
On 9/17/07, Daniel Jue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having the templates with an html extension allows easier integration
with you preferred html editor, such as Dreamweaver. ("edit with")
Whereas you may want xml documents opened with Notepad++ (Great, by
the way), etc.
If anything, they should be .xhtml documents.
Another problem might be that some browsers may not have their mime
types properly set--about the only mime type you can guarantee to
work
is for html. I think xml and xhtml are delivered as something other
than text usually.
This is pretty old, but check out:
http://www.ookingdom.com/design/xhtml
On 9/17/07, Christian Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It occurs to me that having .html as a file extension on the
template
files is weird, especially since they are by necessity well-formed
xml
documents, which html documents are not. Since they might be other
kinds of documents than xhtml, would it make more sense to have them
called .xml documents? It's a small thing, but worth considering.
Christian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Partner and Senior Architect at Feature50
Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
