I agree with Rob. If you are using tiles and hence subview, then pretty much everything needs to be in f:verbatim. This is definitely a big shortcoming IMO but its not a MyFaces one. There were understandable reasons why this couldn't be address in JSF 1.1 but its also understandable that many people would be turned off by it.
As Craig pointed out this is being addressed in the upcoming specs. I think JSF will make the jump to wide spread acceptance once the 1.2 spec and implementations are done. Don't hold your breath though, this will likely take some time. Craig, if you had to guess on the spec completion and a full RI (with an available JSP 2.1 implementation to go with) what timeframe would you put on that? You're probably in a better position to guess than most of us (although its only a guess.) sean On 4/20/05, James Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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... > >
