-0.9 on 'fixing' something that is b0rken in an external browser. I don't mind having fixes in javascript libraries to wrinkle out inconsistencies or work around bugs: these are local to the functionality in the js libraries.
'Fixing' HTML feels like fixing Java code for our users. If for some reason javax.util.Foo doesn't work on windows are we going to automatically replace the code with javax.tools.Bar? How far are we going to take this? Are we going to include spell checkers that automatically 'correct' misspelled words? Martijn On 11/2/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This doesn't really lead anywhere. > > I haven't heard a single argument against replacing <div/> with > <div></div> except people being anxious of wicket touching the markup. > > But you should realize that without this, you can't even put <div/> > inside markup because it breaks the DOM in firefox. So what's the > point? > > I really don't think that "I don't want wicket to touch my markup" is > a valid point. All Wicket does it touching the markup. So why this > particular case is wrong when it doesn't break anything (I know about > - If i'm wrong on this please anyone correct me), but, rather than > that it fixes real problems? > > -Matej > > On 11/2/07, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A Html error finder (IMarkupFilter) already exists but is disabled by > > default. We could extend it or create a new one. Actually anybody can > > create it and provide it to us. > > > > Juergen > > > -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
