well accessability laws are not the only requirements... Some companies request that webapps must work with JS disabled for SECURITY reasons. JS is considered a big risk, on the same level as ActiveX. EG. checkout the links on <http://ajaxtopics.com/security.html> or this article <http://www.devarticles.com/c/a/JavaScript/JavaScript-Security/>. asking the search engines for "security risk javascript" you hardly find a hit that claims otherwise...
For JSF 2.0 I asked Ed to include a requirement to add "gracefull degradation"- specifications. Components should behave in a defined way, when some of their dependencies (like missing JS) are not available. I consider designing JS-free UI's a bigger challenge than so called "Rich" UI's. It is more difficult to come up with a user-friendly solutoin, but I have seen applications migrated from a complex Smalltalk-Fat-client UI to a JS-free webapp UI, and see that the users appreciated the simplification of the UI. It ended up more in a "step by step" UI, which was easier to understand. regards Alexander -----Original Message----- From: Adam Winer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 4:32 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: Re: Pulse check for org.apache.myfaces.ALLOW_JAVASCRIPT Jesse, Yes, commandLink is the only component in the JSF impl that emits Javascript. That's because the set of components in the JSF spec is minimal, and the set of features on those few components is minimal. It does not constitute proof that any component that uses Javascript is being silly. I also have yet to see much evidence that JS-free pages are truly necessary today (a common claim that accessibility laws require functioning without Javascript is false.) I'm fine with the goal of avoiding Javascript except when necessary, and fine with documenting which components require it and which don't. Anything more is, well, very 20th century. Regards, Adam Winer On 10/26/06, Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The newest JSF-RI release (1.2_03) does not emmit anymore JS according > to Ed. > > Only exception is the command-link... and for that one I discussed a > possible solution with Ryan, which will be tried sometime soon... > > regards > Alexander > > and: JS-free pages are definitely necessary... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:14 PM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: Pulse check for org.apache.myfaces.ALLOW_JAVASCRIPT > > Hold on with Tiles support - it works without problems even in the > current MyFaces-version. > > Javascript stuff - yes, we need javascript. No way round it, except > you use only command-buttons. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 10/26/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Team, > > > > Whatever happened to this feature? Does it work in the latest release? I > > seem to remember the spec (version # anyone) saying js was required. > > > > Dennis Byrne > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matthias Wessendorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 02:03 PM > > To: 'MyFaces Discussion' > > Subject: Re: status of tiles support > > > > > >JS less :) sure +1 on that. > > > > > > Do you want to start a discussion on the dev list about > > > org.apache.myfaces.ALLOW_JAVASCRIPT ? > > > > > > my friend, that's for you :) > > > > > >back to alaska ? or still in india ? > > > > > > Back from India, to Chicago :) > > > > ah I dude, I remember! :) > > you like it there ? > > > > > >-M > > > > > > Dennis Byrne > > > > > > >On 10/26/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Matze, > > > >> > > > >> Am I the only one who feels the Tiles support and javascriptless > > > >> feature should officially be retired ? To my knowledge these haven't > > > >> worked well since the good ol' 1.0.9 days :) > > > >> > > > >> Dennis Byrne > > > >> > > > >> >-----Original Message----- > > > >> >From: Matthias Wessendorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 01:40 PM > > > >> >To: 'MyFaces Discussion' > > > >> >Subject: Re: status of tiles support > > > >> > > > > >> >it is this clazz > > > >> > > > > >> >org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk.application.jsp.JspTilesViewHandlerImpl > > > >> > > > > >> >To be honest, you should try Facelets instead of Tiles for templating > > > >> >a JSF app > > > >> > > > > >> >-Matthias > > > >> > > > > >> >On 10/26/06, Michael Südkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> >> Hello, > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I wonder what is the status of the tiles support? > > > >> >> > > > >> >> The myfaces-examples are still at version 1.1.1 and the included > > > >> >> tiles > > > >> >> web-app will not run with the the 1.1.3 libs (and probably also not > > > >> >> with > > > >> >> 1.1.4) (java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: > > > >> >> org.apache.myfaces.application.jsp.JspTilesViewHandlerImpl). > > > >> >> > > > >> >> The wiki topic at http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/Tiles_and_JSF is > > > >> >> also not > > > >> >> up to date. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Can anyone help me how to set it up? > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Michael > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >-- > > > >> >Matthias Wessendorf > > > >> >http://tinyurl.com/fmywh > > > >> > > > > >> >further stuff: > > > >> >blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > > > >> >mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Matthias Wessendorf > > > >http://tinyurl.com/fmywh > > > > > > > >further stuff: > > > >blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > > > >mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
