Well, if it's wrong, it still might be worth fixing since JSF 1.2
won't be an option in many environments for quite some time. But
since you're the one interested in fixing it, if you don't pursue it,
it won't be changed. In my own use cases, I'm not concerned about
strict html or xhtml
Hello all again,
As reading 1.2 spec, I found out that leading underscore was made explicitly
forbidden (section 3.1.1). Since 1.2 might get to the trunk soon, I guess
this issue deserves a no-op for 1.1 branch?
Regards,
~ Simon
On 4/20/07, Volker Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Hello everyone,
This thread is a follow-up for [EMAIL PROTECTED] thread about
HTML 4.01compliance. As mentioned in that thread, JSF spec requires
implementor to
provide a HTML 4.01 compliant renderkit (Section 8.5). However, both JSF RI
and MyFaces cannot currently ensure that. One of the reason
Also, this issue is important for some clients, especially governments since
they sometimes have politics about W3C standard compliance. Therefore, a
very small issue like the generated id can be enough to put an end to a
proposed JSF solution on its own. Of course, I know this is not the only
I did a quick search, and this issue has come up at least twice
before, but the responses to keeping the current behavior were
unconvincing.
5/20/2005 Serious problems with MyFaces ID allocation which is not
conform to XHTML!
7/12/2006 w3c Markup validator does not like generated ID's after
Development
Subject: Re: MyFaces and HTML 4.01
I did a quick search, and this issue has come up at least twice
before, but the responses to keeping the current behavior were
unconvincing.
5/20/2005 Serious problems with MyFaces ID allocation which is not
conform to XHTML!
7/12/2006 w3c Markup
Hi!
Belen, Marco wrote:
In order 'choose' an unique prefix, why not re-use a common way to
create unique names in Java: Use a package-structure.
There for until it can be configured in the web.xml how about using
org_apache_myfaces_ as the clientID-prefix.
My first reaction on this was:
@ client id values:
I would also be against using a client id more than a few characters.
Too much of a performance hit.
@ configuring:
static is easy. If it were just public static, then in the config parser,
UIViewRoot.UNIQUE_ID_PREFIX = new_prefix;
A system property isn't a bad
On Apr 20, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Mario Ivankovits wrote:
Belen, Marco wrote:
In order 'choose' an unique prefix, why not re-use a common way to
create unique names in Java: Use a package-structure.
There for until it can be configured in the web.xml how about using
org_apache_myfaces_ as the
For sites that implement testing, like Selenium, and use the generated Ids
their should
be an option to maintain the current prefix. This option need not be the
default, but
it must be documented
Paul Spencer
Mike Kienenberger wrote:
@ client id values:
I would also be against using a
Hmmm what about a prefix of the same length than currently to prevent page
size increase, but a bit strange to prevent most potential clashes? Maybe
i_d?
On 4/20/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 20, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Mario Ivankovits wrote:
Belen, Marco wrote:
In order
Hi,
Maybe i_d?
this was also my first thought.
Regards,
Volker
12 matches
Mail list logo
