But what is wrong with the earlier proposal (which no one replied to)?
I'm reposting it here for your convenience:
---
If one is forced to strip away Wicket tags in production mode in
order to get doctype working properly it defeats the entire ability to
debug Wicket code. That is, if the page renders different in debug vs
release mode, we've got a serious problem. Furthermore, I wouldn't want
to strip away Wicket tags in debug mode because I need to debug what the
heck is going on.
I understand the reluctance to introduce "magic" which moves
doctype inside/output the <wicket:extend> tag. Let me point out the
following:
- We never want DOCTYPE inside <wicket:extend> because then the page is
not previewable.
- Hence, the logical step is to:
DOCTYPE
<wicket:extend>
foo
</wicket:extend>
so now we're stuck with the magic of inheriting tags outside of
<wicket:extend>... Maybe there is a cleaner way to do this so it doesn't
look like magic, but if now I still think we should do it. It's a choice
of either "magic" or losing the ability to debug pages ... I'd choose
"magic" every time, hands down.
Maybe the problem is <wicket:extend> to begin with. That is, there
is the assumption that it must encompass any HTML we are inheriting, yet
this is impossible because some tags (like doctype) *must* come at the
beginning of the page and we *don't* want to inherit the entire page
(i.e. everything between the DOCTYPE and where <wicket:extend> is
currently located.
Why not simply define <wicket:extend> as the subset of the page
that we are inheriting minus anything to do with page headers? Headers
and doctype are things that are "metadata" outside the scope of the page
contents. <wicket:extend> bounds page contents and the metadata can be
set on the Java side or HTML side if you include a doctype.
What do you think?
Gili
I'm afraid not. When using markup inheritance and having setStrip...
off, the result page looks like this
<wicket:extend><doctype...
everybrowser will ignore doctype, as it's preceeded by wicket:extends.
So no schema is going to help there.
-Matej
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Phil Kulak wrote:
I think that if setStrip... works, then there's no problem. Having any
wicket tags breaks XHTML compliance,
Though that is only because we haven't (been able too) write a working
schema for it. When we have the schema, Wicket is XHML comlient (XHTML
== XML == supports namespaces).
Eelco
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September
19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September
19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
