I assumed the example given by Jan was a Page (Page => derived from Page.java) because of the html structure (body tag etc and no wicket:extend, wicket:panel etc.). A standard normal Page does not need <wicket:head>. You can place your component in <head> and add() them.
Panels <wicket:panel>, Borders <wicket:border> and extended pages <wicket:extend> may have a <head> for previewability as well, but everything outside of <wicket:panel>, <wicket:border> and <wicket:extend> is ignored, except <wicket:head> (and the <body onLoad="xxx"> attribute). Juergen On 3/6/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 3/5/06, Gili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Igor Vaynberg wrote: > > > On 3/5/06, *Gili* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > David Leangen wrote: > > > >> That's news to me. So when is <wicket:head> used? > > > > > > > > In borders and components when you want to contribute to the > > > <head> of > > > > the output. > > > > > > But Juergen said "<wicket:head> in Pages don't make any > > > sense". Isn't a > > > Page a component too? So is Page different from other components in > that > > > its <head> is automatically interpreted as <wicket:head> or > something? > > > > > > > > > > > > in a normal page the <wicket:head> tag is redundant because you can put > > > whatever you want into <head> element and you are done since you are in > > > control of that portion of markup. but in a case where you are using > > > markup inheritance + <head> is defined in the super page + the extending > > > page wants to contribute something to head, i think <wicket:head> does > > > make sense. > > > > Ok, so I want this clarified by Juergen then. I recall him saying > > something about how in Wicket 1.2 you didn't need a <wicket:head> in > > children pages because <head> would get used automatically. > > > > this may very well be the fact with the latest snapshots. juergen has been > putting in a lot of time and cool stuff into header contributions. > > > > > Well that's a catch-22 isn't it? If I don't know the answer, > > > how can I > > > document it in Wiki? And if I do, I wouldn't have asked the > question. > > > Once I get the answer fully figured out I'll see what I can do about > > > updated the Wiki page. > > > > > > > > > really? i didnt know this was the case. i can remember a lot of times > > > when johan, i, and others answered your questions in ##wicket, and > > > extensively explained things to you. how many wiki contributions have > > > you made? hmmmmmm. > > > > > > i am not saying that we are trading our support for wiki contributions, > > > but please dont talk bs. > > > > I made some Wiki contributions. My point wasn't whether I can > > contribute to Wiki once I know an answer (clearly I can) but rather that > > if I am the person asking a question it is illogical to expect me to > > post an answer to Wiki before I know it myself. > > > i was just calling you on this: > > > Once I get the answer fully figured out I'll see what I can do about > > updated the Wiki page. > > -Igor > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
