Martijn Dashorst wrote:
<wicket:container id="foo">
</wicket:container>

my thoughts exactly... it is just a lot of typing...

The only problem I have is that it will not work in any browser for
Ajax replacements. I know this is not the targetted usecase, but I
think this will confuse (novice) users.

<table>
<span wicket:id="foo">
<tr><td>bla</td></tr>
<tr><td>foo</td></tr>
</span>
</table>

Will work in IE afaict, but

<table>
<wicket:container id="foo">
<tr><td>bla</td></tr>
<tr><td>foo</td></tr>
</wicket:container>
</table>
I really can see the second one working in any browser. Because there will not by any "foo" element in the generated markup to be replaced.

-Matej

not.

Martijn

On 12/27/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<wicket:container> !



On 12/27/06, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
> >
>






--

    get professional wicket training and consultation
    http://www.wicket-support.com

Reply via email to