RE: WML Generation from JSP broken!!!!
Tom Reilly wrote, So here's my proposal: JSP 1.2 engines have mime type mappings like so (or something like this): *.jsp - application/jsp *.jspx - application/jsp-xml And documents of type application/jsp and application/jspx (or whatever names we decide on) are handled appropriately by default without any special web.xml constructs. This will also enable one to author a mime-type based servlet filter that can operate on JSP pages in a standard way. That sounds good to me ... One qualification: the current proposal on the table for XML MIME types is to use a '+xml' suffix (there are various complicated reasons why '+' is preferable to '-'). See, http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml So the XML JSP type ought to be, 'application/jsp+xml'. Cheers, Miles -- Miles Sabin InterX Internet Systems Architect5/6 Glenthorne Mews +44 (0)20 8817 4030 London, W6 0LJ, England [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.interx.com/
RE: WML Generation from JSP broken!!!!
Tom Reilly wrote, It seems to me there are a couple solutions: 1) look for jsp:root 2) use DOCTYPE 3) based it on file extension I don't like 1 because it adds overhead to the translation process, and you have to deal with cases like: %-- jsp:root --% I don't like 2 because if your JSP page is generating XML and you want to output a DOCTYPE then you have a collision. So that leaves 3 which I like the best. A good standard default would be "jspx". Of course most app servers allow this to be customized. I also like this because then different filters can be assigned to JSP pages written in XML and plain old JSP pages. Yes and no. I agree that it'd be a mistake to handle this by inspecting the contents of the document, but I don't think file extensions are quite the right way to go. We should do it based on MIME type, and allow servers to use their existing file extension to MIME type mapping mechanisms to do the rest. What is the mime type for an XML-syntax JSP doc? application/jsp+xml or text/jsp+xml would seem to be the most likely candidates ... presumably they'd need to be registered. Cheers, Miles -- Miles Sabin InterX Internet Systems Architect5/6 Glenthorne Mews +44 (0)20 8817 4030 London, W6 0LJ, England [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.interx.com/
RE: WML Generation from JSP broken!!!!
Nathan Abramson wrote, I don't think it should be done through a server's MIME type mapping - that means that someone writing a web app needs to know about the mappings installed on the target server, which makes the web app less portable. Hmm ... not convinced. I'd have thought that configuring MIME types essential for the operation of a JSP engine would be an basic part of the installation of said engine. If that can't be done there's a problem with the install mechanism, or the host server (or its administrator). Another approach is to declare each document's type in the web.xml, or to declare categorization rules in web.xml (e.g., XMLJSP == *.[jspx|jsx]), but that seems much clumsier to me. Well, this is as near as makes no difference to specifying a MIME mapping in web.xml. Is there anything wrong with going by extension? I'll bet that's what a lot of tools are starting to do anyway, so we might as well standardize it... File extensions aren't more portable than MIME types, quite the reverse ... ie. some platforms don't use them at all (albeit a very small minority of those platforms which which are Servlet/JSP capable). And even where they are used there are issues with case- sensitivity (ie. .JSP in the file system might be equivalent to .jsp on one platform but not on another). Cheers, Miles -- Miles Sabin InterX Internet Systems Architect5/6 Glenthorne Mews +44 (0)20 8817 4030 London, W6 0LJ, England [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.interx.com/
