On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:55:15 +1000, Cameron Braid wrote:
>As far as I know, namespaced attributes are perfecly legal in XML.
>
>XHTML is just an xml document with a DTD, so using wicket:id should be
>perfectly legal.
So, assuming it turns out to be legal, does everyone agree with
the approach I mentioned (read below)?
Gili
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:55:15 +1000, Cameron Braid wrote:
>As far as I know, namespaced attributes are perfecly legal in XML.
>
>XHTML is just an xml document with a DTD, so using wicket:id should be
>perfectly legal.
>
>Cameron.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wicket-develop-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gili
>> Sent: Sunday, 13 March 2005 2:37 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: RE: [Wicket-develop] Wicket prefix
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:25:39 -0500, Gili wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:17:31 +1000, Cameron Braid wrote:
>> >
>> >>Is it not possible to use a namespace with attributes. For example
>> >>wicket:id='username' could be used. It's a wicket specific attribute -
>> and
>> >>is compatible with xhtml because it is in another namespace.
>> >
>> > If that is true then I will feel better about this situation
>> >but the last time I checked in Macromedia Dreamweaver or FireFox I am
>> >fairly sure it complained about this... I will give it another try and
>> >get back to you.
>>
>> Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we might have a winner. IE and
>> FireFox don't seem to complain about it but Macromedia states: "The
>> wicket:id attribute of the DIV tag is not supported [ list of browsers
>> ]" which I think is fine because it complains that way about all other
>> wicket-specific tags.
>>
>> Assuming we can prove 100% that this is legal XHTML and does
>> not violate the DTD (and we're not there yet) then this would totally
>> fix all our problems indefinately. We could always use "wicket:id" for
>> all wicket components, disallow the use of "id" (to prevent confusion),
>> and developers can optionally add an "id" to a tag but it would be up
>> to them to make sure it is unique across the page. For example, they'd
>> subclass one of our components and use an AttributeModifier to add an
>> ID tag for their personal use.
>>
>> Optionally (although I think we should always do this) Wicket
>> would strip away all Wicket specific tags such that the resulting code
>> would be 100% valid HTML and it would not be obvious to people viewing
>> our source that Wicket was even used.
>>
>> Where do we find out more conclusively whether wicket:id is
>> legal? Are there any good XHTML discussion forums?
>>
>> Gili
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
>> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
>> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
>> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wicket-develop mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
>Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
>Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
>_______________________________________________
>Wicket-develop mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
>
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
