I am one of those working on tapestry and facebook. I don't think it's
big deal as to the extension, but read on for some possible future ideas.
Here is an idea out of left field. I wonder if there is anything that
we can do to have tapestry be more content-type friendly:
1) break out all components that are html specific to tapestry-html
library. It's not hard to include tapestry-html in your dependencies, it
will be cleaner, and get you thinking about what is or is not tied to html..
2) somehow have component loader be aware of the extension or
content-type of the page/template (.html, .xhtml, .fbml, etc ), and
maybe use that information to set the content-type of the output, or
maybe even change how it selects components and mixins. So that we
might be able to override or change the default behavior for other
components.. t:pagelink could possibly behave differently for .fbml
templates than for .html templates.. or some components would only be
available within the appropriate content-type...
Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> I'm on the fence on this; I agree that .xml might be a more appropriate
> extension, or something Tapestry specific, such as ".tml". Certainly we're
> starting see people want to use Tapestry to create non-HTML, such as SVG and
> something related to Facebook.
>
> On the other hand, the easy integration with editors should not be
> discounted.
>
> Let see what others think ... it's not a huge change at this point to change
> the extension.
>
> On 9/17/07, Daniel Jue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Having the templates with an html extension allows easier integration
>> with you preferred html editor, such as Dreamweaver. ("edit with")
>> Whereas you may want xml documents opened with Notepad++ (Great, by
>> the way), etc.
>>
>> If anything, they should be .xhtml documents.
>>
>> Another problem might be that some browsers may not have their mime
>> types properly set--about the only mime type you can guarantee to work
>> is for html. I think xml and xhtml are delivered as something other
>> than text usually.
>>
>> This is pretty old, but check out:
>> http://www.ookingdom.com/design/xhtml
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/17/07, Christian Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It occurs to me that having .html as a file extension on the template
>>> files is weird, especially since they are by necessity well-formed xml
>>> documents, which html documents are not. Since they might be other
>>> kinds of documents than xhtml, would it make more sense to have them
>>> called .xml documents? It's a small thing, but worth considering.
>>>
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
