that sounds better.
Johan Compagner 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. >> > >> > >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%3Cwicket%3Apseudo%3E-tf2881952.html#a8066718 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
