5. Tags nested in <html:html xhtml="false"> will not be rendered in xhtml regardless of any other settings.
Dave
From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:41:53 -0700
What if we did this:
1. Store a boolean in the request under Globals.XHTML_KEY
2. <html:html xhtml="true"> would set the boolean to true
3. <html:xhtml> (new tag) would set the boolean to true
4. People could manually set the request attribute if they choose and realize potential problems.
This frees you from using <html:html>, and allows included jsps to set their xhtml status independently of the outer page.
Does this accomodate everyone's needs?
David
From: "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:29:21 -0800
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@;apache.org]
>
> The presumption of storing the "outer" xhtml setting
> (independent of *how*
> you do so) is to let the included page automatically adapt to
> the outer
> page's choice - presumably, that lets you use the same
> included page in an
> XHTML and non-XHTML environment with no changes.
>
> But, in reality, that's only true if 100% of the content of
> the included
> page is struts-html tags -- if the developer has any static
> HTML elements,
> for example, they *must* have selected one style or the
> other, and that
> style won't get affected. You're going to end up with a mishmash.
This is my primary objection to passing the xhtml flag "through" the
jsp:include unconditionally. The included page needs to have control
over this.
> Maybe what we really need is a way for the included page to
> tell its own
> Struts tags whether or not to be XHTML formatted or not. Perhaps a
> specialized version of <html:html xhtml="..."> that was
> searched for the
> same way that the standard version is, but does *not* actually emit an
> <html> element?
I don't think it would be a "variation" of the "html:html" element, it
would have to be a separate tag, whose only purpose (AFAICS) is to set
this flag.
Would anyone have a reason to specify that the page should NOT use
xhtml? I could envision a "html:useXhtml" tag (bleah), but should it
have an attribute that specifies a "true" or "false" value, or can it be
attribute-less?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
