Hi, well, i prefer plain, straight html without any tables (only tables if they are really necessary which is quite rare) and the only thing an empty <div> does is to put a blank line before and after it (see W3C definition) wich is sth. IMHO the <p> tag is sufficent for.
2; well - I don't - and the thing here from the origin post was based on a mistake by me... in fact, the empty div's came from an RepeatingView container who just ignores the .setRenderBodyOnly(true) ... (see my post in wicket user list for details). I now understand why wicket cant strip the tags by default, but need to find a solution for the RepeatingView (i use it in a BasePage or for dynamic forms - but get loads of empty divs because of that) Regards > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Herman Bovens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2007 15:02 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div > > > 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-d iv-tf3824821.html#a10835894 > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
