so what I mean is:
HTML
<span jwcid="@Insert" value="ognl: someProperty"/>
and
Page Spec
<binding name="value" value="ongl:someProptery"/>
is my preference.
But as I wrote this, I thought, "why can't we have literal='' and
expression='' and message='', etc in the Page spec?" Could this be
parse easily? In otherwords, in the spec, the attribute name tells us
what we're using, instead of the old <message-binding>, <binding>, etc.
Jamie
On Jul 27, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
I'm struggling with whether consistency is challenged by using
"literal:" as the default in templates, and "ognl:" as the default
elsewhere.
On 7/27/05, Jamie Orchard-Hays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is my main feeling about why I would prefer literal in HTML
templates.
If it comes down to a vote for all literal or all ognl in both
templates and specs, then I'll go with all *literal*.
Jamie
On Jul 27, 2005, at 2:04 AM, Nick Westgate wrote:
Plain HTML tag attributes are literal, so why should the
component tag attributes in HTML be any different?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
