We made the decision to retain the 0.92 tags in our current 1.0
implementation for the reason that this is an 1.0 preliminary release, not
the final release, and as strong members of the "anti scriptlet when not
needed" camp we would very much like to see the loop etc tags included in
the 1.0 spec. Sure, 1.1 will have the extensible tags library functionality
(which is a *great* idea by the way), but we think the loop, includeIf etc
tags should be "core" anyways - not an extension.
/Magnus Stenman
Orion WebServer - http://orion.evermind.net
-----Original Message-----
From: A mailing list about Java Server Pages specification and
reference [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Foster Bob
Sent: den 8 maj 1999 06:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Compatibility Proposal
Why have a taglib directive if there is no standard for tag extensions?
Obviously it's there because some JSP implementors were planning to
introduce their own non-standard tags (heck, they already have) and/or
wanted to jump the gun on extendable tag libraries.
This is a tricky situation, standards-wise. Given the thirst frequently
expressed here for more HTML-writer-friendly JSP pages, I'd guess people
will use these vendor-specific tags. Which could easily mean that pages
written for one implementation won't run on another, which is no standard
at all.
It is way more important to ensure this doesn't happen than to squeeze a
few more tags into JSP 1.0.
Given that everything can't happen overnight, Sun has chosen a sensible
middle ground. The taglib directive, together with the set of guidelines
for tags (rather quietly blended into the 1.0 spec) makes it at least
possible that pages using extended tags won't have to be rewritten to work
with JSP 1.1.
I'd expect Sun to be working closely with implementors to ensure that
"pre-release" tag extension mechanisms can work in other vendors'
implementations, and can easily conform to the eventual 1.1 standard.
Meanwhile, the right short term answer for friendly coexistence with HTML
designers is to develop a programming style that minimizes the amount of
raw Java in JSP files and makes maximal use of the standard tags that _do_
exist in 1.0.
Bob Foster
Symantec Internet Tools http://www.visualcafe.com/
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: A Compatibility Proposal
Author: Scott Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at Internet
Date: 5/7/99 5:30 PM
1.0 already has this. That's the point of the taglib directive. JSP
Implementations are perfectly free to implement their own tag extensions.
Granted, it's not standardized yet, but I'd rather the JSP team focus on
cleaning 1.0 up, shipping it, and then focusing on standard tags.
We've already waited far too long to get 1.0. I really don't want to delay
1.0
until everyone gets their favorite feature added.
2.8.4 the taglib directive
"This directive declares that the page uses custom tags, ..."
Scott Ferguson
Caucho Technology
Ben Engber wrote:
> Optional support in 1.0 is an excellent idea. As with a lot of people on
> this list, the non-scripting tags were THE selling point of JSP for me.
>
> Instead of saying something like:
>
> LOOP, EXLUDEIF, INCLUDEIF are postponed until when a Tag
> Extension Mechanism is made available...
>
> why not say:
>
> A portable Tag Extension Mechanism will be available in JSP 1.1. The
> following extension tags must be implemented in 1.1 compliant servers
> <jsp:loop> <jsp:includeif> <jsp:excludeif>. Implementing these tags
> (albeit non-portably) is optional for JSP 1.0 servers.
>
> At least then we'll have the stubs to design pages without scriptlet code
> all over. In fact, it's not even necessary to define the names or formats
> of those three tags. Even this would be fine:
>
> JSP 1.0 compliant servers should implement these three functions ...
> These functions will be formalized as part of a Tag Extension
> Mechanism in JSP 1.1.
>
> My reasoning here is that it will probably be less intrusive to port from
> one extension tag syntax to another than it would be to port from a
> scriptlet-based page to a tag-based page. Not to mention making planning
> ahead easier.
>
> -Ben
>
> At 09:13 AM 5/7/99 -0500, Mark A. Kolb wrote:
> >I predict, however, that as soon as 1.1 becomes available, someone is
going
> >to write and release a tag library that implements the 0.92 tags (it
might
> >even be me :). To save much anguish in the meantime, then, I would like
to
> >suggest that the 1.0 spec include optional support for such a tag
library,
> >now.
>
>
===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the
body
> of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
