1) OK, but doesn't it render differently then? 2) Do you use DIV e.g. inside TD tags? I think you shouldn't: just add the wicket:id to the TD tag. But then of course you don't want the TD tag to disappear, so you use an ordinary Label instead of the subclass.
Korbinian Bachl wrote: > > > 1; the label was just an example - the reason I choose <div> is that > is invalid for certain surroundings while <div> is always valid > > 2; no - in all cases where <div> is solo and empty it is very bad html > output IMHO to have empty <div>'s - they allways should have at least any > kind of descriptor/ tag in them > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Herman Bovens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2007 01:19 >> An: [email protected] >> Betreff: Re: AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div >> >> >> 1) I think you should only use a <div> tag if you want >> one. I usually use <span> for labels. >> 2) If removing the tag is what you want, I assume that's only >> for labels and only in some cases. Why not create a subclass >> of Label which calls >> setRenderBodyOnly(true) in the constructor? >> >> >> Korbinian Bachl wrote: >> > >> > hmm, makes sense - there is no global way to get rid of these empty >> > div's ? >> > (putting a .setRenderBodyOnly(true) to every seems quite a pain) >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/wicket-1.3.0-snapshot---wicket-tags-in-d > iv-tf3824821.html#a10829469 >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/wicket-1.3.0-snapshot---wicket-tags-in-div-tf3824821.html#a10835894 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
