I think the original post was misguided I think he must have meant <f:subview> and a few other parent component tags.
-----Original Message----- From: Rob Decker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 April 2005 13:17 To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: <f:verbatim> requirement You can put unadorned html inside <f:view>. I haven't noticed that myfaces is stricter about this. It doesn't help much in any case if you're using tiles and most of your pages are in <f:subview>. It also isn't all that apparent whether or not a component renders it's children or not, so you usually have to find out through trial and error. ----- Original Message ----- From: "tony kerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "MyFaces Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:56 PM Subject: <f:verbatim> requirement > before i pose the following question i want to provide kudos for the > myfaces team for their tremendous effort in implementing to the spec > (and then some) and getting the project elevated to an apache top level. > > please don't take my comments as criticism, just looking for some rationale: > > is the requirement to wrap non-jsf related html or jsp tags in > <f:verbatim> elements specified in the JSF spec or is it's strict usage > open to interpretation? > > obviously the requirement is a chore for developers and makes resultant > pages more cluttered and difficult to read. > > are there any plans to eliminate this requirement or is strict usage the > way that the myfaces team interprets the spec? > > it's kind of confusing when books like JSF in Action show unadorned html > within an <f:view> parent and this style isn't supported in myfaces...
