Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
And even on development you could disable it via overriding the Application.init() and calling getMarkupSettings().setStripWicketTags(true); Ernesto On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Ichiro Furusato ichiro.furus...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jeremy, Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so, I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what else I've seen in Wicket). Cheers, Ichiro On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato ichiro.furus...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the clients I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects. What I'll call the Wicket XHTML DTD is referenced as the XML namespace URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only, even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD. Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD. It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.: This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers: PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN SYSTEM http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema: the addition of some wicket: prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;. It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and will not validate according to that DTD. There are a few questions/comments that come from the above: 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing? Would removing them break existing functionality? 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes? 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply the code supporting that feature. 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then flattened (converted into one file) based on some tools I've written. This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and be appropriately named, e.g., -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible. Some clarification on this would be most appreciated, Thanks, Ichiro PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what should not be rocket science. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is wicket:id, which will automatically be removed from your HTML in deployment mode. So, use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict XHTML is what will be rendered. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Hi Ichiro, If you want to enforce valid XHTML, take a look at the WicketStuff HTML Validator: http://github.com/dashorst/wicket-stuff-markup-validator It automatically validates all pages served by the application and shows an error report for invalid markup. Best regards, Emond Papegaaij On Thursday 16 September 2010 03:50:35 Ichiro Furusato wrote: Hi Jeremy, Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so, I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what else I've seen in Wicket). Cheers, Ichiro On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato ichiro.furus...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the clients I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects. What I'll call the Wicket XHTML DTD is referenced as the XML namespace URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only, even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD. Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD. It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.: This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers: PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN SYSTEM http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema: the addition of some wicket: prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;. It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and will not validate according to that DTD. There are a few questions/comments that come from the above: 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing? Would removing them break existing functionality? 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes? 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply the code supporting that feature. 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then flattened (converted into one file) based on some tools I've written. This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and be appropriately named, e.g., -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible. Some clarification on this would be most appreciated, Thanks, Ichiro PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what should not be rocket science. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is wicket:id, which will automatically be removed from your HTML in deployment mode. So, use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict XHTML is what will be rendered. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Thanks Emond, that looks very helpful. I'm a bit overwhelmed at this point, having started learning Wicket on Wednesday and by now almost having a bare bones application. Nice little surprises along the way... On 9/17/10, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: Hi Ichiro, If you want to enforce valid XHTML, take a look at the WicketStuff HTML Validator: http://github.com/dashorst/wicket-stuff-markup-validator It automatically validates all pages served by the application and shows an error report for invalid markup. Best regards, Emond Papegaaij On Thursday 16 September 2010 03:50:35 Ichiro Furusato wrote: Hi Jeremy, Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so, I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what else I've seen in Wicket). Cheers, Ichiro On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato ichiro.furus...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the clients I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects. What I'll call the Wicket XHTML DTD is referenced as the XML namespace URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only, even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD. Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD. It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.: This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers: PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN SYSTEM http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema: the addition of some wicket: prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;. It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and will not validate according to that DTD. There are a few questions/comments that come from the above: 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing? Would removing them break existing functionality? 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes? 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply the code supporting that feature. 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then flattened (converted into one file) based on some tools I've written. This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and be appropriately named, e.g., -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible. Some clarification on this would be most appreciated, Thanks, Ichiro PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what should not be rocket science. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is wicket:id, which will automatically be removed from your HTML in deployment mode. So, use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict XHTML is what will be rendered. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com - To
Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Hi, I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the clients I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects. What I'll call the Wicket XHTML DTD is referenced as the XML namespace URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only, even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD. Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD. It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.: This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers: PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN SYSTEM http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema: the addition of some wicket: prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;. It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and will not validate according to that DTD. There are a few questions/comments that come from the above: 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing? Would removing them break existing functionality? 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes? 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply the code supporting that feature. 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then flattened (converted into one file) based on some tools I've written. This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and be appropriately named, e.g., -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible. Some clarification on this would be most appreciated, Thanks, Ichiro PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what should not be rocket science. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato ichiro.furus...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the clients I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects. What I'll call the Wicket XHTML DTD is referenced as the XML namespace URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only, even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD. Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD. It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.: This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers: PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN SYSTEM http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema: the addition of some wicket: prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;. It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and will not validate according to that DTD. There are a few questions/comments that come from the above: 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing? Would removing them break existing functionality? 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes? 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply the code supporting that feature. 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then flattened (converted into one file) based on some tools I've written. This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and be appropriately named, e.g., -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible. Some clarification on this would be most appreciated, Thanks, Ichiro PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what should not be rocket science. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is wicket:id, which will automatically be removed from your HTML in deployment mode. So, use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict XHTML is what will be rendered. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Hi Jeremy, Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so, I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what else I've seen in Wicket). Cheers, Ichiro On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato ichiro.furus...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the clients I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects. What I'll call the Wicket XHTML DTD is referenced as the XML namespace URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only, even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD. Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD. It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.: This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers: PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN SYSTEM http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema: the addition of some wicket: prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;. It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and will not validate according to that DTD. There are a few questions/comments that come from the above: 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing? Would removing them break existing functionality? 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes? 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply the code supporting that feature. 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then flattened (converted into one file) based on some tools I've written. This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and be appropriately named, e.g., -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible. Some clarification on this would be most appreciated, Thanks, Ichiro PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what should not be rocket science. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is wicket:id, which will automatically be removed from your HTML in deployment mode. So, use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict XHTML is what will be rendered. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Yes Jeremy Thomerson http://wickettraining.com -- sent from my smart phone, so please excuse spelling, formatting, or compiler errors On Sep 15, 2010 8:51 PM, Ichiro Furusato ichiro.furus...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jeremy, Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so, I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what else I've seen in Wicket). Cheers, Ichiro On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM,...
