Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Antoni Reus]

Hi,

A Dimecres 13 Novembre 2002 23:06, David Graham va escriure:
> The developer must make a choice between html and xhtml.  This choice is
> minor as xhtml is compatible with current browsers.  Included jsps should
> not be influenced by the includer file; they must decide if they're xhtml
> or html.  That's the point behind the  tag, to  tell struts
> html library tags to render in xhtml.
>
> If you want to reuse a jsp in an html project then don't code it with xhtml
> tags.
>
> David
>
>

I don't completely agree with this:

"Included jsps should not be influenced by the includer file; they must decide 
if they're xhtml or html."

I think included jsps must not decide a thing that involves the whole request!

Anyway I  think I can see your point, included jsps should always output the 
same, xhtml or html, so you can rely on the output of the jsp, even if you 
are including it from a non-struts jsp page,.. oh well, I think now I 
completely agree with the above :-)

Salut!

-- Antoni Reus

>
>
>
>
> From: Antoni Reus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:53:36 +0100
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >A Dimecres 13 Novembre 2002 20:45, Martin Cooper va escriure:
> > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Eddie Bush wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > > If the outermost document is meant to enforce XHTML, how can an
> >
> >included
> >
> > > > piece *not* conform to XHTML and the entire document still be XHTML?
> >
> >I
> >
> > > > ... feel like we're attempting to over-design - but maybe I'm just
> > > > showing my own ignorance (which is something I don't think I'll ever
> > > > learn not to do - I learn way too much from being willing to do it).
> > >
> > > It can't, and that's in part what Craig pointed out. Since each
> > > included page must also be XHTML, each of those pages should state
> > > explicitly
> >
> >that
> >
> > > it is XHTML, instead of having the decision about whether or not to
> > > generate XHTML be made externally (i.e. on the topmost page). Given
> > > that the non-Struts tags on the page must also be explicitly XHTML,
> > > that
> >
> >makes
> >
> > > sense.
> >
> >The document doctype (xhtml1, html401) is global, like the character
> >encoding
> >or some response headers. There is no sense in changing the doctype flag
> > in included pages.
> >
> >If you develop a page to be included and you use tags other than
> >struts-html,
> >like  or  there is no way to reuse this page in both xhtml and
> >html, with or without , , etc 
> >but if a developer is able to create a  page to be included that only uses
> >struts-html and/or other custom tags, with the  aproach she
> >will not be able to reuse its page to generate xhtml or html
> >
> >
> >Salut!
> >
> >-- Antoni Reus
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> >For additional commands, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
>
> _
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[David Graham]

The developer must make a choice between html and xhtml.  This choice is 
minor as xhtml is compatible with current browsers.  Included jsps should 
not be influenced by the includer file; they must decide if they're xhtml or 
html.  That's the point behind the  tag, to  tell struts html 
library tags to render in xhtml.

If you want to reuse a jsp in an html project then don't code it with xhtml 
tags.

David






From: Antoni Reus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:53:36 +0100

Hi,

A Dimecres 13 Novembre 2002 20:45, Martin Cooper va escriure:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Eddie Bush wrote:
>
> 
>
> > If the outermost document is meant to enforce XHTML, how can an 
included
> > piece *not* conform to XHTML and the entire document still be XHTML?  
I
> > ... feel like we're attempting to over-design - but maybe I'm just
> > showing my own ignorance (which is something I don't think I'll ever
> > learn not to do - I learn way too much from being willing to do it).
>
> It can't, and that's in part what Craig pointed out. Since each included
> page must also be XHTML, each of those pages should state explicitly 
that
> it is XHTML, instead of having the decision about whether or not to
> generate XHTML be made externally (i.e. on the topmost page). Given that
> the non-Struts tags on the page must also be explicitly XHTML, that 
makes
> sense.

The document doctype (xhtml1, html401) is global, like the character 
encoding
or some response headers. There is no sense in changing the doctype flag in
included pages.

If you develop a page to be included and you use tags other than 
struts-html,
like  or  there is no way to reuse this page in both xhtml and
html, with or without , , etc 
but if a developer is able to create a  page to be included that only uses
struts-html and/or other custom tags, with the  aproach she
will not be able to reuse its page to generate xhtml or html


Salut!

-- Antoni Reus

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: 
<mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>


_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Antoni Reus]

Hi, 

A Dimecres 13 Novembre 2002 20:45, Martin Cooper va escriure:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Eddie Bush wrote:
>
> 
>
> > If the outermost document is meant to enforce XHTML, how can an included
> > piece *not* conform to XHTML and the entire document still be XHTML?  I
> > ... feel like we're attempting to over-design - but maybe I'm just
> > showing my own ignorance (which is something I don't think I'll ever
> > learn not to do - I learn way too much from being willing to do it).
>
> It can't, and that's in part what Craig pointed out. Since each included
> page must also be XHTML, each of those pages should state explicitly that
> it is XHTML, instead of having the decision about whether or not to
> generate XHTML be made externally (i.e. on the topmost page). Given that
> the non-Struts tags on the page must also be explicitly XHTML, that makes
> sense.

The document doctype (xhtml1, html401) is global, like the character encoding 
or some response headers. There is no sense in changing the doctype flag in 
included pages.

If you develop a page to be included and you use tags other than struts-html, 
like  or  there is no way to reuse this page in both xhtml and 
html, with or without , , etc 
but if a developer is able to create a  page to be included that only uses 
struts-html and/or other custom tags, with the  aproach she 
will not be able to reuse its page to generate xhtml or html


Salut!

-- Antoni Reus

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[David Graham]

The future of the struts html tags is unclear.  JavaServer Faces will 
largely replace their functionality.  I just wanted to get simple xhtml 
support into Struts now because it's a requirement on some projects.  It's 
easy enough to setup xhtml with the current nightly builds and enhancements 
I'll be making over the next few days.

David






From: "Hajratwala, Nayan (N.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Struts Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:18:57 -0500

I think it would be worth investigating whether or not XHTML is fully 
backward compatible with HTML 4.01 (which i think it is), and then ONLY 
rendering XHTML, and forgetting about HTML altogether.  Of course, this 
would have the be a version 2.0 enhancement because it would likely break 
some people's pages.

Anyone agree?

---
- Nayan Hajratwala
- Chikli Consulting LLC
- http://www.chikli.com


-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support


Ok, I think I agree with the non-body tag setting a page scoped attribute.
I really like the style of  over .  The "is"
part indicates that it's a question rather than stating that we're using
xhtml.

Regardless, I'll get the changes in soon so people can start playing with
it.

David






>From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:10:29 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
>
> > What would  do?
>
>This would be the way Craig was seeking for an included page to tell its
>own Struts tags whether to render XHTML or plain HTML. It would set a
>*page* context attribute, which the subsequent tags on that page would
>check.
>
>As a corollary, the  tag should set the key in
>*page* scope rather than request scope, so that each page has to make its
>own decision.
>
> >
> > If we're going to use a tag I think it should be like this:
> > 
> >   
> >  
> >   
> > 
>
>Do you mean a separate tag from the  tag, instead of using
>, or are you referring to another tag for the
>XHTML-ness ;-) of the content? If the former, I'm not sure why we would
>want that. If the latter, I disagree that it should be a body tag, since
>it needs to be an all-or-nothing tag, not one that applies only to its
>body.
>
> >
> > Any tag inside  would be rendered as xhtml.  This tag 
would
>only
> > be useful for jsp included files.
> >
> > Another question: what if  is nested inside
> > ?
>
>I think we should probably log a warning. In many cases, the resulting
>output will work, but we need to flag that there's a potential problem.
>
>--
>Martin Cooper
>
>
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> > >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:29:21 -0800 (PST)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
> > >
> > > > What if we just forgot about the  tag altogether?  If 
an
> > > > included jsp wants to use xhtml they can set the Globals.XHTML_KEY
> > >request
> > > > parameter to true.
> > >
> > >How would you propose to do that without using scriptlets, and 
without
> > >"knowing" the value of the key?
> > >
> > >I think perhaps a  tag is the most straightforward
> > >solution.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Martin Cooper
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that the currently implemented solution works for
>people
> > >using
> > > >  in a jsp and for people using tiles where they can 
have
>a
> > > > layout.jsp like this:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > What's left is how to accomodate people using jsp includes.  What 
do
>you
> > > > think?
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > &

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Hajratwala, Nayan (N.)]

I think it would be worth investigating whether or not XHTML is fully backward 
compatible with HTML 4.01 (which i think it is), and then ONLY rendering XHTML, and 
forgetting about HTML altogether.  Of course, this would have the be a version 2.0 
enhancement because it would likely break some people's pages.

Anyone agree?

---
- Nayan Hajratwala
- Chikli Consulting LLC
- http://www.chikli.com


-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support


Ok, I think I agree with the non-body tag setting a page scoped attribute.  
I really like the style of  over .  The "is" 
part indicates that it's a question rather than stating that we're using 
xhtml.

Regardless, I'll get the changes in soon so people can start playing with 
it.

David






>From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:10:29 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
>
> > What would  do?
>
>This would be the way Craig was seeking for an included page to tell its
>own Struts tags whether to render XHTML or plain HTML. It would set a
>*page* context attribute, which the subsequent tags on that page would
>check.
>
>As a corollary, the  tag should set the key in
>*page* scope rather than request scope, so that each page has to make its
>own decision.
>
> >
> > If we're going to use a tag I think it should be like this:
> > 
> >   
> >  
> >   
> > 
>
>Do you mean a separate tag from the  tag, instead of using
>, or are you referring to another tag for the
>XHTML-ness ;-) of the content? If the former, I'm not sure why we would
>want that. If the latter, I disagree that it should be a body tag, since
>it needs to be an all-or-nothing tag, not one that applies only to its
>body.
>
> >
> > Any tag inside  would be rendered as xhtml.  This tag would 
>only
> > be useful for jsp included files.
> >
> > Another question: what if  is nested inside
> > ?
>
>I think we should probably log a warning. In many cases, the resulting
>output will work, but we need to flag that there's a potential problem.
>
>--
>Martin Cooper
>
>
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> > >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:29:21 -0800 (PST)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
> > >
> > > > What if we just forgot about the  tag altogether?  If an
> > > > included jsp wants to use xhtml they can set the Globals.XHTML_KEY
> > >request
> > > > parameter to true.
> > >
> > >How would you propose to do that without using scriptlets, and without
> > >"knowing" the value of the key?
> > >
> > >I think perhaps a  tag is the most straightforward
> > >solution.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Martin Cooper
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that the currently implemented solution works for 
>people
> > >using
> > > >  in a jsp and for people using tiles where they can have 
>a
> > > > layout.jsp like this:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > What's left is how to accomodate people using jsp includes.  What do 
>you
> > > > think?
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> > > > >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:06:56 -0800
> > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
> > > > > 

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Karr, David]

Neither am I.  Absolutely correct naming is almost impossible, it's just
a good goal.  If you can't make it perfect, the documentation should
take you the rest of the way.  Make sure that the documentation for the
"html" and "xhtml" tags refer to each other.  A boilerplate comment
about this in each HTML tag might be useful also.

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:martinc@;apache.org]
> 
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
> 
> > Ok, I think I agree with the non-body tag setting a page 
> scoped attribute.
> > I really like the style of  over 
> .  The "is"
> > part indicates that it's a question rather than stating 
> that we're using
> > xhtml.
> 
> I'm not that fussed about the name - isXhtml, useXhtml, or 
> just xhtml. I
> do agree with David Karr that just xhtml is rather subtle, but I'm not
> going to veto it. ;-)

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Eddie Bush]

Martin Cooper wrote:


On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Eddie Bush wrote:




If the outermost document is meant to enforce XHTML, how can an included
piece *not* conform to XHTML and the entire document still be XHTML?  I
... feel like we're attempting to over-design - but maybe I'm just
showing my own ignorance (which is something I don't think I'll ever
learn not to do - I learn way too much from being willing to do it).
   

It can't, and that's in part what Craig pointed out. Since each included
page must also be XHTML, each of those pages should state explicitly that
it is XHTML, instead of having the decision about whether or not to
generate XHTML be made externally (i.e. on the topmost page). Given that
the non-Struts tags on the page must also be explicitly XHTML, that makes
sense.


Ah - so the tag would serve to say "This is XHTML-compliant" so that you 
could then say "Wait a sec - you asked for an XHTML document - but you 
included this and it's not XHTML".  I think I understand the reasoning 
better now.  Sorry about being so thick-headed.

I figured I was confuzzled, but I wanted to be clear.  Thanks Martin ;-)

--
Martin Cooper


--
Eddie Bush


--
Eddie Bush




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Martin Cooper]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:

> Ok, I think I agree with the non-body tag setting a page scoped attribute.
> I really like the style of  over .  The "is"
> part indicates that it's a question rather than stating that we're using
> xhtml.

I'm not that fussed about the name - isXhtml, useXhtml, or just xhtml. I
do agree with David Karr that just xhtml is rather subtle, but I'm not
going to veto it. ;-)

--
Martin Cooper


 >
> Regardless, I'll get the changes in soon so people can start playing with
> it.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:10:29 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
> >
> > > What would  do?
> >
> >This would be the way Craig was seeking for an included page to tell its
> >own Struts tags whether to render XHTML or plain HTML. It would set a
> >*page* context attribute, which the subsequent tags on that page would
> >check.
> >
> >As a corollary, the  tag should set the key in
> >*page* scope rather than request scope, so that each page has to make its
> >own decision.
> >
> > >
> > > If we're going to use a tag I think it should be like this:
> > > 
> > >   
> > >  
> > >   
> > > 
> >
> >Do you mean a separate tag from the  tag, instead of using
> >, or are you referring to another tag for the
> >XHTML-ness ;-) of the content? If the former, I'm not sure why we would
> >want that. If the latter, I disagree that it should be a body tag, since
> >it needs to be an all-or-nothing tag, not one that applies only to its
> >body.
> >
> > >
> > > Any tag inside  would be rendered as xhtml.  This tag would
> >only
> > > be useful for jsp included files.
> > >
> > > Another question: what if  is nested inside
> > > ?
> >
> >I think we should probably log a warning. In many cases, the resulting
> >output will work, but we need to flag that there's a potential problem.
> >
> >--
> >Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> > > >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:29:21 -0800 (PST)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What if we just forgot about the  tag altogether?  If an
> > > > > included jsp wants to use xhtml they can set the Globals.XHTML_KEY
> > > >request
> > > > > parameter to true.
> > > >
> > > >How would you propose to do that without using scriptlets, and without
> > > >"knowing" the value of the key?
> > > >
> > > >I think perhaps a  tag is the most straightforward
> > > >solution.
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >Martin Cooper
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep in mind that the currently implemented solution works for
> >people
> > > >using
> > > > >  in a jsp and for people using tiles where they can have
> >a
> > > > > layout.jsp like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > What's left is how to accomodate people using jsp includes.  What do
> >you
> > > > > think?
> > > > >
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> &g

Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Martin Cooper]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Eddie Bush wrote:



> If the outermost document is meant to enforce XHTML, how can an included
> piece *not* conform to XHTML and the entire document still be XHTML?  I
> ... feel like we're attempting to over-design - but maybe I'm just
> showing my own ignorance (which is something I don't think I'll ever
> learn not to do - I learn way too much from being willing to do it).

It can't, and that's in part what Craig pointed out. Since each included
page must also be XHTML, each of those pages should state explicitly that
it is XHTML, instead of having the decision about whether or not to
generate XHTML be made externally (i.e. on the topmost page). Given that
the non-Struts tags on the page must also be explicitly XHTML, that makes
sense.

--
Martin Cooper


>
> --
> Eddie Bush
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[David Graham]

Ok, I think I agree with the non-body tag setting a page scoped attribute.  
I really like the style of  over .  The "is" 
part indicates that it's a question rather than stating that we're using 
xhtml.

Regardless, I'll get the changes in soon so people can start playing with 
it.

David






From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:10:29 -0800 (PST)



On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:

> What would  do?

This would be the way Craig was seeking for an included page to tell its
own Struts tags whether to render XHTML or plain HTML. It would set a
*page* context attribute, which the subsequent tags on that page would
check.

As a corollary, the  tag should set the key in
*page* scope rather than request scope, so that each page has to make its
own decision.

>
> If we're going to use a tag I think it should be like this:
> 
>   
>  
>   
> 

Do you mean a separate tag from the  tag, instead of using
, or are you referring to another tag for the
XHTML-ness ;-) of the content? If the former, I'm not sure why we would
want that. If the latter, I disagree that it should be a body tag, since
it needs to be an all-or-nothing tag, not one that applies only to its
body.

>
> Any tag inside  would be rendered as xhtml.  This tag would 
only
> be useful for jsp included files.
>
> Another question: what if  is nested inside
> ?

I think we should probably log a warning. In many cases, the resulting
output will work, but we need to flag that there's a potential problem.

--
Martin Cooper


>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:29:21 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
> >
> > > What if we just forgot about the  tag altogether?  If an
> > > included jsp wants to use xhtml they can set the Globals.XHTML_KEY
> >request
> > > parameter to true.
> >
> >How would you propose to do that without using scriptlets, and without
> >"knowing" the value of the key?
> >
> >I think perhaps a  tag is the most straightforward
> >solution.
> >
> >--
> >Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that the currently implemented solution works for 
people
> >using
> > >  in a jsp and for people using tiles where they can have 
a
> > > layout.jsp like this:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > What's left is how to accomodate people using jsp includes.  What do 
you
> > > think?
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> > > >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:06:56 -0800
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
> > > > >
> > > > > What if we did this:
> > > > > 1.  Store a boolean in the request under Globals.XHTML_KEY
> > > > > 2.   would set the boolean to true
> > > > > 3.   (new tag) would set the boolean to true
> > > > > 4.  People could manually set the request attribute if they
> > > > > choose and
> > > > > realize potential problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > This frees you from using , and allows included
> > > > > jsps to set their
> > > > > xhtml status independently of the outer page.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this accomodate everyone's needs?
> > > >
> > > >Well, I have no "needs" for this, just opinions :) .
> > > >
> > > >Despite the simplicity of "html:xhtml", I think the name should be 
a
> > > >little more different from "html:html".  I used the example of
> > > >"html:useXhtml" to try to make it clearer that 

Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Eddie Bush]

Martin Cooper wrote:


On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:


What would  do?
   

This would be the way Craig was seeking for an included page to tell its
own Struts tags whether to render XHTML or plain HTML. It would set a
*page* context attribute, which the subsequent tags on that page would
check.

As a corollary, the  tag should set the key in
*page* scope rather than request scope, so that each page has to make its
own decision.


If we're going to use a tag I think it should be like this:

 

 

   

Do you mean a separate tag from the  tag, instead of using
, or are you referring to another tag for the
XHTML-ness ;-) of the content? If the former, I'm not sure why we would
want that. If the latter, I disagree that it should be a body tag, since
it needs to be an all-or-nothing tag, not one that applies only to its
body.


I too am confused as to why we would need an additional tag.


Any tag inside  would be rendered as xhtml.  This tag would only
be useful for jsp included files.

Another question: what if  is nested inside
?
   

I think we should probably log a warning. In many cases, the resulting
output will work, but we need to flag that there's a potential problem.

--
Martin Cooper


David


If the outermost document is meant to enforce XHTML, how can an included 
piece *not* conform to XHTML and the entire document still be XHTML?  I 
... feel like we're attempting to over-design - but maybe I'm just 
showing my own ignorance (which is something I don't think I'll ever 
learn not to do - I learn way too much from being willing to do it).

--
Eddie Bush




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Martin Cooper]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:

> What would  do?

This would be the way Craig was seeking for an included page to tell its
own Struts tags whether to render XHTML or plain HTML. It would set a
*page* context attribute, which the subsequent tags on that page would
check.

As a corollary, the  tag should set the key in
*page* scope rather than request scope, so that each page has to make its
own decision.

>
> If we're going to use a tag I think it should be like this:
> 
>   
>  
>   
> 

Do you mean a separate tag from the  tag, instead of using
, or are you referring to another tag for the
XHTML-ness ;-) of the content? If the former, I'm not sure why we would
want that. If the latter, I disagree that it should be a body tag, since
it needs to be an all-or-nothing tag, not one that applies only to its
body.

>
> Any tag inside  would be rendered as xhtml.  This tag would only
> be useful for jsp included files.
>
> Another question: what if  is nested inside
> ?

I think we should probably log a warning. In many cases, the resulting
output will work, but we need to flag that there's a potential problem.

--
Martin Cooper


>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:29:21 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
> >
> > > What if we just forgot about the  tag altogether?  If an
> > > included jsp wants to use xhtml they can set the Globals.XHTML_KEY
> >request
> > > parameter to true.
> >
> >How would you propose to do that without using scriptlets, and without
> >"knowing" the value of the key?
> >
> >I think perhaps a  tag is the most straightforward
> >solution.
> >
> >--
> >Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that the currently implemented solution works for people
> >using
> > >  in a jsp and for people using tiles where they can have a
> > > layout.jsp like this:
> > >
> > > 
> > >    
> > > 
> > >
> > > What's left is how to accomodate people using jsp includes.  What do you
> > > think?
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> > > >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:06:56 -0800
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
> > > > >
> > > > > What if we did this:
> > > > > 1.  Store a boolean in the request under Globals.XHTML_KEY
> > > > > 2.   would set the boolean to true
> > > > > 3.   (new tag) would set the boolean to true
> > > > > 4.  People could manually set the request attribute if they
> > > > > choose and
> > > > > realize potential problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > This frees you from using , and allows included
> > > > > jsps to set their
> > > > > xhtml status independently of the outer page.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this accomodate everyone's needs?
> > > >
> > > >Well, I have no "needs" for this, just opinions :) .
> > > >
> > > >Despite the simplicity of "html:xhtml", I think the name should be a
> > > >little more different from "html:html".  I used the example of
> > > >"html:useXhtml" to try to make it clearer that the tag isn't generating
> > > >a HTML tag, and is pretty different from "html:html".
> > > >
> > > >Also (from your other note), if any tags nested (even through
> > > >"jsp:include") in  will NOT use xhtml, then
> > > >that implies that the other tag also needs a "true/false" attribute, as
> > > >opposed to having no attributes (which would imply the tag's presence
> > > >implies "true").
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >To unsubscribe, e-m

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[David Graham]

Forgot this:
5.  Tags nested in  will not be rendered in xhtml 
regardless of any other settings.

Dave






From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:41:53 -0700

What if we did this:
1.  Store a boolean in the request under Globals.XHTML_KEY
2.   would set the boolean to true
3.   (new tag) would set the boolean to true
4.  People could manually set the request attribute if they choose and 
realize potential problems.

This frees you from using , and allows included jsps to set 
their xhtml status independently of the outer page.

Does this accomodate everyone's needs?

David





From: "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:29:21 -0800

> -Original Message-
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@;apache.org]
>
> The presumption of storing the "outer" xhtml setting
> (independent of *how*
> you do so) is to let the included page automatically adapt to
> the outer
> page's choice - presumably, that lets you use the same
> included page in an
> XHTML and non-XHTML environment with no changes.
>
> But, in reality, that's only true if 100% of the content of
> the included
> page is struts-html tags -- if the developer has any static
> HTML elements,
> for example, they *must* have selected one style or the
> other, and that
> style won't get affected.  You're going to end up with a mishmash.

This is my primary objection to passing the xhtml flag "through" the
jsp:include unconditionally.  The included page needs to have control
over this.

> Maybe what we really need is a way for the included page to
> tell its own
> Struts tags whether or not to be XHTML formatted or not.  Perhaps a
> specialized version of  that was
> searched for the
> same way that the standard version is, but does *not* actually emit an
>  element?

I don't think it would be a "variation" of the "html:html" element, it
would have to be a separate tag, whose only purpose (AFAICS) is to set
this flag.

Would anyone have a reason to specify that the page should NOT use
xhtml?  I could envision a "html:useXhtml" tag (bleah), but should it
have an attribute that specifies a "true" or "false" value, or can it be
attribute-less?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: 
<mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>


_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: 
<mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>


_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[David Graham]

What if we did this:
1.  Store a boolean in the request under Globals.XHTML_KEY
2.   would set the boolean to true
3.   (new tag) would set the boolean to true
4.  People could manually set the request attribute if they choose and 
realize potential problems.

This frees you from using , and allows included jsps to set their 
xhtml status independently of the outer page.

Does this accomodate everyone's needs?

David





From: "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:29:21 -0800

> -Original Message-
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@;apache.org]
>
> The presumption of storing the "outer" xhtml setting
> (independent of *how*
> you do so) is to let the included page automatically adapt to
> the outer
> page's choice - presumably, that lets you use the same
> included page in an
> XHTML and non-XHTML environment with no changes.
>
> But, in reality, that's only true if 100% of the content of
> the included
> page is struts-html tags -- if the developer has any static
> HTML elements,
> for example, they *must* have selected one style or the
> other, and that
> style won't get affected.  You're going to end up with a mishmash.

This is my primary objection to passing the xhtml flag "through" the
jsp:include unconditionally.  The included page needs to have control
over this.

> Maybe what we really need is a way for the included page to
> tell its own
> Struts tags whether or not to be XHTML formatted or not.  Perhaps a
> specialized version of  that was
> searched for the
> same way that the standard version is, but does *not* actually emit an
>  element?

I don't think it would be a "variation" of the "html:html" element, it
would have to be a separate tag, whose only purpose (AFAICS) is to set
this flag.

Would anyone have a reason to specify that the page should NOT use
xhtml?  I could envision a "html:useXhtml" tag (bleah), but should it
have an attribute that specifies a "true" or "false" value, or can it be
attribute-less?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: 
<mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>


_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Karr, David]

> -Original Message-
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@;apache.org]
> 
> The presumption of storing the "outer" xhtml setting 
> (independent of *how*
> you do so) is to let the included page automatically adapt to 
> the outer
> page's choice - presumably, that lets you use the same 
> included page in an
> XHTML and non-XHTML environment with no changes.
> 
> But, in reality, that's only true if 100% of the content of 
> the included
> page is struts-html tags -- if the developer has any static 
> HTML elements,
> for example, they *must* have selected one style or the 
> other, and that
> style won't get affected.  You're going to end up with a mishmash.

This is my primary objection to passing the xhtml flag "through" the
jsp:include unconditionally.  The included page needs to have control
over this.

> Maybe what we really need is a way for the included page to 
> tell its own
> Struts tags whether or not to be XHTML formatted or not.  Perhaps a
> specialized version of  that was 
> searched for the
> same way that the standard version is, but does *not* actually emit an
>  element?

I don't think it would be a "variation" of the "html:html" element, it
would have to be a separate tag, whose only purpose (AFAICS) is to set
this flag.

Would anyone have a reason to specify that the page should NOT use
xhtml?  I could envision a "html:useXhtml" tag (bleah), but should it
have an attribute that specifies a "true" or "false" value, or can it be
attribute-less?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Craig R. McClanahan]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:

> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:50:35 -0700
> From: David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
>
> I'm still unclear on the direction we should take here.  I'd like to hear
> from other committers :-).
>

I haven't voted on this yet -- but it's primarily because I don't really
believe in the  use case being handled like this.

The presumption of storing the "outer" xhtml setting (independent of *how*
you do so) is to let the included page automatically adapt to the outer
page's choice - presumably, that lets you use the same included page in an
XHTML and non-XHTML environment with no changes.

But, in reality, that's only true if 100% of the content of the included
page is struts-html tags -- if the developer has any static HTML elements,
for example, they *must* have selected one style or the other, and that
style won't get affected.  You're going to end up with a mishmash.

Maybe what we really need is a way for the included page to tell its own
Struts tags whether or not to be XHTML formatted or not.  Perhaps a
specialized version of  that was searched for the
same way that the standard version is, but does *not* actually emit an
 element?

> Thanks,
> Dave

Craig


>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:57:07 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >We need to ensure that HTML taglib tags in included JSP pages also heed
> >the xhtml attribute. That isn't the case with what's there now, because
> >findAncestorWithClass() will fail for the tags in the included pages.
> >
> >Note that this is why the form tag stores itself in a request attribute.
> >Originally, it also used findAncestorWithClass(), but it was changed to
> >allow forms to span pages.
> >
> >So I see two ways of handling this:
> >
> >A) Have the  tag store itself in a request attribute, and
> >change BaseHandlerTag.isXhtml() to grab the tag from there before calling
> >getXhtml().
> >
> >B) Have the  tag store the value of its 'xhtml' attribute as a
> >request attribute, and use that in BaseHandlerTag.isXhtml().
> >
> >Of these, I prefer the first approach because it makes it harder for
> >people to futz (technical term :) with the value in their pages.
> >
> >--
> >Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
> >
> > > I've updated that html taglib tags to output xhtml when they are nested
> >in a
> > >  tag.  This was very simple to do and resulted
> >in
> > > minor code changes.  Users have suggested this approach:
> > >
> > > 1.  Add Globals.XHTML_KEY which is a boolean request scoped attribute
> > > 2.  html tags check for that request attribute being true and output
> > > accordingly.
> > > 3.  The html:html tag sets this request attribute when it's xhtml
> >attribute
> > > is true.
> > >
> > > The second approach allows the tags to output xhtml without relying on
> >the
> > >  tag.  This allows people to construct pages with jsp
> >includes.
> > > The first approach is logically clearer (to me) and you can use tiles to
> > > modularly construct the pages like includes.  Approach 2 may be
> >confusing
> > > because you would have to remember all the places you may have set that
> > > request attribute.
> > >
> > > So, do we go with 1, 2 or both?
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _
> > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> >For additional commands, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
> _
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Eddie Bush]

Don't bother drawing a ballot up - these guys don't use it! 
They're all like thinking outside the box and adding options to it, 
dude!  ... and there's that one fellow who is always saying "put your 
code where your mouth is - we only vote on code" - while standing there 
with a wild, Clint Eastwood look on his face!  (Go ahead punk - make my 
release-candidate!)  In any case, most people will tell you to ask for 
forgiveness instead of permission.

I would follow Martin's suggest course of action, plan A.  This way, you 
wind up having access to the tag, which is the Information Expert here. 
I don't agree with Martin's suggestion that this is a more robust way 
to handle things - I just think it's sensless to create things you don't 
need to.  It's irrelevant whether you put a Boolean or the tag-handler 
out there with respect to the mucking of variables - the tag-handler is 
a java-bean, right?  Thus, it could easily be updated at any stage too 
(ie futzed with).  I do think it would be more efficient (albeit ever-so 
slightly) to just use the tag, since there is no additional creation of 
a Boolean object to stuff into the request.

In either case, yes, you're going to want to add some key to Globals - 
the name of it I wouldn't hazard a guess at.  What you have sounds ok, 
but it's really representing the tag now, so perhaps it should reflect 
that in it's name?  (ok, fine, I will hazard a pseudo-guess at it! ;-)

David Graham wrote:

I'm still unclear on the direction we should take here.  I'd like to 
hear from other committers :-).

Thanks,
Dave 

--
Eddie Bush




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Hal Deadman]

I agree with Martin that you can't ignore people using jsp:include. I prefer
his option B because then it allows someone to use the xhtml support in the
other tags without forcing them to use . They would have to set
the attribute themselves and assume the risks that go along with making
assumptions about how the tag is working.

> -Original Message-
> From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
>
>
> I'm still unclear on the direction we should take here.  I'd
> like to hear
> from other committers :-).
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:57:07 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >We need to ensure that HTML taglib tags in included JSP
> pages also heed
> >the xhtml attribute. That isn't the case with what's there
> now, because
> >findAncestorWithClass() will fail for the tags in the included pages.
> >
> >Note that this is why the form tag stores itself in a
> request attribute.
> >Originally, it also used findAncestorWithClass(), but it was
> changed to
> >allow forms to span pages.
> >
> >So I see two ways of handling this:
> >
> >A) Have the  tag store itself in a request attribute, and
> >change BaseHandlerTag.isXhtml() to grab the tag from there
> before calling
> >getXhtml().
> >
> >B) Have the  tag store the value of its 'xhtml'
> attribute as a
> >request attribute, and use that in BaseHandlerTag.isXhtml().
> >
> >Of these, I prefer the first approach because it makes it harder for
> >people to futz (technical term :) with the value in their pages.
> >
> >--
> >Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
> >
> > > I've updated that html taglib tags to output xhtml when
> they are nested
> >in a
> > >  tag.  This was very simple to do
> and resulted
> >in
> > > minor code changes.  Users have suggested this approach:
> > >
> > > 1.  Add Globals.XHTML_KEY which is a boolean request
> scoped attribute
> > > 2.  html tags check for that request attribute being true
> and output
> > > accordingly.
> > > 3.  The html:html tag sets this request attribute when it's xhtml
> >attribute
> > > is true.
> > >
> > > The second approach allows the tags to output xhtml
> without relying on
> >the
> > >  tag.  This allows people to construct pages with jsp
> >includes.
> > > The first approach is logically clearer (to me) and you
> can use tiles to
> > > modularly construct the pages like includes.  Approach 2 may be
> >confusing
> > > because you would have to remember all the places you may
> have set that
> > > request attribute.
> > >
> > > So, do we go with 1, 2 or both?
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _
> > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> >For additional commands, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
> _
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[David Graham]

I'm still unclear on the direction we should take here.  I'd like to hear 
from other committers :-).

Thanks,
Dave






From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:57:07 -0800 (PST)

We need to ensure that HTML taglib tags in included JSP pages also heed
the xhtml attribute. That isn't the case with what's there now, because
findAncestorWithClass() will fail for the tags in the included pages.

Note that this is why the form tag stores itself in a request attribute.
Originally, it also used findAncestorWithClass(), but it was changed to
allow forms to span pages.

So I see two ways of handling this:

A) Have the  tag store itself in a request attribute, and
change BaseHandlerTag.isXhtml() to grab the tag from there before calling
getXhtml().

B) Have the  tag store the value of its 'xhtml' attribute as a
request attribute, and use that in BaseHandlerTag.isXhtml().

Of these, I prefer the first approach because it makes it harder for
people to futz (technical term :) with the value in their pages.

--
Martin Cooper


On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:

> I've updated that html taglib tags to output xhtml when they are nested 
in a
>  tag.  This was very simple to do and resulted 
in
> minor code changes.  Users have suggested this approach:
>
> 1.  Add Globals.XHTML_KEY which is a boolean request scoped attribute
> 2.  html tags check for that request attribute being true and output
> accordingly.
> 3.  The html:html tag sets this request attribute when it's xhtml 
attribute
> is true.
>
> The second approach allows the tags to output xhtml without relying on 
the
>  tag.  This allows people to construct pages with jsp 
includes.
> The first approach is logically clearer (to me) and you can use tiles to
> modularly construct the pages like includes.  Approach 2 may be 
confusing
> because you would have to remember all the places you may have set that
> request attribute.
>
> So, do we go with 1, 2 or both?
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
<mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: 
<mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>


_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Martin Cooper]

We need to ensure that HTML taglib tags in included JSP pages also heed
the xhtml attribute. That isn't the case with what's there now, because
findAncestorWithClass() will fail for the tags in the included pages.

Note that this is why the form tag stores itself in a request attribute.
Originally, it also used findAncestorWithClass(), but it was changed to
allow forms to span pages.

So I see two ways of handling this:

A) Have the  tag store itself in a request attribute, and
change BaseHandlerTag.isXhtml() to grab the tag from there before calling
getXhtml().

B) Have the  tag store the value of its 'xhtml' attribute as a
request attribute, and use that in BaseHandlerTag.isXhtml().

Of these, I prefer the first approach because it makes it harder for
people to futz (technical term :) with the value in their pages.

--
Martin Cooper


On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:

> I've updated that html taglib tags to output xhtml when they are nested in a
>  tag.  This was very simple to do and resulted in
> minor code changes.  Users have suggested this approach:
>
> 1.  Add Globals.XHTML_KEY which is a boolean request scoped attribute
> 2.  html tags check for that request attribute being true and output
> accordingly.
> 3.  The html:html tag sets this request attribute when it's xhtml attribute
> is true.
>
> The second approach allows the tags to output xhtml without relying on the
>  tag.  This allows people to construct pages with jsp includes.
> The first approach is logically clearer (to me) and you can use tiles to
> modularly construct the pages like includes.  Approach 2 may be confusing
> because you would have to remember all the places you may have set that
> request attribute.
>
> So, do we go with 1, 2 or both?
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[David Graham]

Yes, I have already implemented choice 1.  Good points David.

Dave







From: "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:14:10 -0800

Just so I understand, you're experimenting with making tags generated
from a jsp:include be xhtml-compliant even if the original page wasn't
specified as being xhtml-compliant?  It seems to me that XHTML
compliance is an attribute of an "html" element and its nested elements
(including the associated DOCTYPE), and not an attribute of an HTTP
request.  This would mean that a page that was jsp:included would
generate different output depending on what page included it.

I'd say that choice 1 (only affecting the elements nested in the "html"
element), which I assume is what you've already done, is preferable to
choice 2 (runtime determination).

> -Original Message-
> From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
>
> I've updated that html taglib tags to output xhtml when they
> are nested in a
>  tag.  This was very simple to do and
> resulted in
> minor code changes.  Users have suggested this approach:
>
> 1.  Add Globals.XHTML_KEY which is a boolean request scoped attribute
> 2.  html tags check for that request attribute being true and output
> accordingly.
> 3.  The html:html tag sets this request attribute when it's
> xhtml attribute
> is true.
>
> The second approach allows the tags to output xhtml without
> relying on the
>  tag.  This allows people to construct pages with
> jsp includes.
> The first approach is logically clearer (to me) and you can
> use tiles to
> modularly construct the pages like includes.  Approach 2 may
> be confusing
> because you would have to remember all the places you may
> have set that
> request attribute.
>
> So, do we go with 1, 2 or both?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: 
<mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>


_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support

[Karr, David]

Just so I understand, you're experimenting with making tags generated
from a jsp:include be xhtml-compliant even if the original page wasn't
specified as being xhtml-compliant?  It seems to me that XHTML
compliance is an attribute of an "html" element and its nested elements
(including the associated DOCTYPE), and not an attribute of an HTTP
request.  This would mean that a page that was jsp:included would
generate different output depending on what page included it.

I'd say that choice 1 (only affecting the elements nested in the "html"
element), which I assume is what you've already done, is preferable to
choice 2 (runtime determination).

> -Original Message-
> From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
> 
> I've updated that html taglib tags to output xhtml when they 
> are nested in a 
>  tag.  This was very simple to do and 
> resulted in 
> minor code changes.  Users have suggested this approach:
> 
> 1.  Add Globals.XHTML_KEY which is a boolean request scoped attribute
> 2.  html tags check for that request attribute being true and output 
> accordingly.
> 3.  The html:html tag sets this request attribute when it's 
> xhtml attribute 
> is true.
> 
> The second approach allows the tags to output xhtml without 
> relying on the 
>  tag.  This allows people to construct pages with 
> jsp includes.  
> The first approach is logically clearer (to me) and you can 
> use tiles to 
> modularly construct the pages like includes.  Approach 2 may 
> be confusing 
> because you would have to remember all the places you may 
> have set that 
> request attribute.
> 
> So, do we go with 1, 2 or both?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: