hmm but that is not the right argument here i think (we shouldn't change because we shouldn't) here we have a case that the design says one thing and the java code another so its a mismatch what should happen then? Today maurice had such a case and that did cost him quite some time to track down. Maybe in development mode we test for it somehow and then throw an exception?
johan On 5/30/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday, May 30, 2007, 3:55:51 PM, Eelco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's not on Nabble (too early) but it was "Attributes need to perserve case" from 06-Sep-2005 on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let me know if you want a copy, but the summary was that Juergen suggested it wasn't really Wicket's place to modify them as it could be confusing, and no one disagreed. The 'issue' was 1286616 on SF - https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=684975&aid=1286616&group_id=119783 /Gwyn > I vaguely remember having a to-lowercase conversion build in around > Wicket 1.0. If it was removed again, we probably had a reason for it. > Did you search the mail archives? > Eelco > On 5/30/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> that would also be my fix. >> Just lower case everything once when loading and we are done. >> Then also lower case the AttributeModifiers and these problems are gone. >> >> does somebody disagree? >> >> johan >> >> >> On 5/30/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Johan Compagner wrote: >> > > should we try to match case insenstive? Not it is just a ValueMap of >> > > attributes so the problem is that we then have to lowercase all the >> > > attributes keys >> > >> > Hmmmm. XHTML says all the attributes should be lowercased, so I see no >> > particular problem with lowercasing everything in the markup loader, >> > aside from the extra overhead. Someone will doubtless complain, though. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Al >> > >> > -- >> > Alastair Maw >> > Wicket-biased blog at http://herebebeasties.com >> > >> /Gwyn
