I dont't think wicket:span or wicket:div either is a good idea unless both would exist. In some places span is allowed in some places div is allowed. If we have only one of them (even if they disappear on render) it would be misunderstanding if there is a wicket:div where no div is allowed. So let's have both or another neutral name. Stefan
________________________________ Von: Juergen Donnerstag [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Mi 27.12.2006 09:25 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: <wicket:pseudo> what do you prefer? wicket:div? wicket:span? wicket:tag? anything else? Juergen On 12/27/06, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > good idea. but pseudo is awfully cryptic. > > > Juergen Donnerstag wrote: > > > > Ingram created the following RFE: > > > > ======================== > > I occasionally encounter a problem, for example, a template like: > > > > <tr> > > <span wicket:id="groupAB"> > > <td>field A</td> > > <td>field B</td> > > </span> > > <td>field C</td> > > </tr> > > > > groupAB is just functional group and will always > > setRenderBodyOnly(true), so rendered page will be validated. > > But the problem is the template is not validated... Is it possible to > > create a psuedo tag like: > > > > <tr> > > <wicket:pseudo wicket:id="groupAB"> > > <td>field A</td> > > <td>field B</td> > > </wicket:pseudo> > > <td>field C</td> > > </tr> > > > > or something like <wicket:tagholder>. Such tag does nothing and always > > render body only. > > By separating namespace, it makes template clean and validated. > > ======================== > > > > It is easy to implement. Shall we add it or not? WDYT? > > > > Juergen > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/%3Cwicket%3Apseudo%3E-tf2881952.html#a8059782 > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
