I am sorry to start this thread here, but I believe that jasper-4.0's
behavior is in error. The behavior I think the spec calls for in
determining if a page is a JSP Document (xml jsp) or an XMl document
with JSP markup is the presence or absence of a jsp:root element.
This is further supported by the content of one of the spec examples
(pg. 36 from the JSP 1.2 PD1 draft), specifically it encourages the use
of the <?xml version="1.0?> header in a document with jsp pages and not
jsp documents
p125 sec. 7.2.1 also would imply that it is the presence of the jsp:root
element at the root of the document that makes an xml document into a
jsp document.
I am also forwarding this to the jsr-053 expert group, that's where the
clarification should come. I am ok with it being either way, but I
think the current spec is a little vague and leans towards the
presence/absence of a jsp:root element (and then for the jsp:root QName
only with no concern as to the namespace url.).
--Danno
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> Attached is a JSP Sample file which generates WML. It works with no problems on
>Tomcat3.1, but
>> fails miserably with the latest dev nightly snapshot and m4. Can someone shed light?
>>
>
> Well, your page certainly doesn't work under Tomcat 4.0 (which implements JSP 1.2).
>Furthermore, it
> *should* not.
>
> Because you are starting this page with an <?xml version="1.0"?> directive, the JSP
>compiler assumes that
> you have created this page in the XML syntax for JSP pages, as described in the 1.2
>spec
> <http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/download.html>. However, this page violates
>several of the rules:
> * It does not start with a <jsp:root> element (this is
> what the parse error is complaining about).
> * It uses <% %> for a scriptlet, instead of the
> required <jsp:scriptlet> element.
>
> You will need to rewrite your page conforming to the new syntax rules in order for
>it to work correctly
> under 4.0.
>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> dims
>>
>> PS: Am not currently subscribed to the list. So please CC me at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>>
>
> Craig McClanahan
>
> PS: Why did it work under 3.1? Because 3.1 didn't support the XML syntax, so it
>just passed the <?xml?>
> directive through as template text.
>
>
>
>
>
>
