See reply below On 11/2/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -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?
Yeah, because wicket's relation to java is same as it's relation to html it produces, right? This all reminds me when I introduced nested forms. People went crazy about how that's not valid and how HTML doesn't support nested forms so neither should Wicket. We are not talking about some hypothetical issue here. This behavior causes real issues and confuses people. It's causes problems that are hard to track down and that we must support because people think it's but in wicket ajax (guess to whom most of the ajax related bugs go). Fixing this has practical benefits. And I haven't heard one argument against it except that "wicket shouldn't do that because it's html". I have personally problems with such arguments. It just feels not pragmatic. > > How far are we going to take this? Are we going to include spell > checkers that automatically 'correct' misspelled words? This is a completely wrong analogy. Because misspelled words is something user is responsible for. But wrong interpretation of valid markup is not user's fault. -Matej > > 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/ >
