It is about clarity: the fact that the form tag is replaced by something else when used inside another form is a technological artifact, not something we're proud of.
A form needs to attach to a form. There is no other reasonable alternative tag available. Wicket can't reasonably ensure validity of applications when we allow any tag to be attached to any component. What is the use of being able to attach a form to a <table>? There is absolutely NONE. Martijn On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Martin Makundi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I wonder if (nested) forms should simply be allowed to have any tag >>> name the programmer desires? >> >> No. Because 99% of the time the programmer is not aware that the form >> is used in a nested fashion: the form usually is on a Panel, that is >> used inside another form. The panel is standalone and should use form >> tags. > > Yes, but there is no harm done if it is ALLOWED to have another tag > name. If the user uses <form there is no harm done and the backward > compatibility would take care of replacing <form> with <div>. > > ** > Martin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
