I have a feeling you didn't read them email I was referring to, because
I addressed these issues. I am reposting it here for your convenience.
---
Ah! Eureka! I just realized something that simplifies the entire
situation...
It never makes sense to have a different doctype for the parent and
child page. Why? Previewability!
If I previewed the parent page in one doctype and suddenly the
product page users another who knows what it'll look like? The same
applies to a child page.
Hence we can simplify this entire discussion and do this:
- <wicket:extend> does may not include the doctype
- Wicket enforces the fact that all pages in the inheritance hierarchy
must have the same doctype. If the parent has no doctype, the child may
not have a doctype either (because the lack of a doctype translates into
an implicit doctype chosen by the browser).
I don't think there is a good counter-example which breaks this design.
What do you think?
---
Now back to responding to your specific points:
- Stripping <wicket:extend> is a bad idea in my opinion because it makes
it makes debug mode less useful and it also makes it useless to ever
disable stripping this tag because if you do that, the page won't render
the same. Hence, we are not really fixing the problem here.
- As for the doctype, we don't have to ensure that the doctype is the
same if you don't wish but the point is that we should not put a feature
in Wicket which encourages people to override the doctype in child
pages, as we just did. It goes against the original Wicket design goals
of reviewability.
I don't believe my proposal is "bloated". I am saying that
<wicket:extend> should act the same as <wicket:border> -- which means
that it should simply mark a subset of a page. Including the doctype in
this subset makes no sense.
Can anyone give me a real-life use-case where including the doctype
actually makes sense?
Gili
Matej Knopp wrote:
Reread the thread. The result is roughly that <wicket:extend> will
disapear from the output.
About doctype, I think it's developer's responsibility to ensure that
the parent and child doctypes are the same.
I think special treatment of this would only bloat wicket, while not
introducing any really useful feature. IMHO the wicket core should aim
to stay as clean and simple as possible.
-Matej
Gili wrote:
Hi,
I never got feedback to my last comment on markup inheritance. Why
can't we simply ensure that all Pages along the markup inheritance use
the same doctype? As I explained in the email, when you think about it
it doesn't make much sense for the parent doctype to differ from the
child doctype hence this entire discussion about doctype and
<wicket:extend> is meaningless.
Can you please read my previous email in wicket-user and let me
know if you agree or disagree?
Thank you,
Gili
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
--
http://www.desktopbeautifier.com/
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
