until now we have the policy that we don't alter the markup.
But we could expand all of them if needed. I don't mind to much
On 11/1/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I think that we might want to do this for all tags except
for couple of selected ones, e.g. hr /
This would
That's not entirely true. E.g. we generate unique ids for script
elements, that is altering markup (this is necessary for header
contribution filtering).
I don't think it would harm to expend those tags.
-Matej
On 11/1/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
until now we have the policy
To elaborate: it is now part of 1.3, the book and about 1000 web applications.
Martijn
On 11/1/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No
Martijn
On 11/1/07, Bruno Borges [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
isn't this a reason to start with that talk again Igor, about replacing
setRequired
It is semanticaly the same. And Firefox really treats div/ etc.
wrong way. Should we have a vote on this?
-Matej
On 11/1/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah we are generating extra attributes
but do we introduce tags itself ?
On 11/1/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah we are generating extra attributes
but do we introduce tags itself ?
On 11/1/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not entirely true. E.g. we generate unique ids for script
elements, that is altering markup (this is necessary for header
contribution filtering).
I don't think
It seems to me that while it's something that Wicket /could/ do, I'm
not sure if it's something that Wicket /should/ do...
Having said that, I think I'd be less against it if we restricted it
to only tags that had a wicket:id attribute?
/Gwyn
Thursday, November 1, 2007, 2:18:34 PM, you wrote:
how would a validator work better here then a boolean?
-igor
On 11/1/07, Bruno Borges [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
isn't this a reason to start with that talk again Igor, about replacing
setRequired with an IValidator?
regards,
bruno
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
On 8/13/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL
On 11/1/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would also reduce confusion of new user when they do span
wicket:id=label'/
have you tried that with the latest betas? :)
-igor
we had that and we changed it to a boolean because required is a thing
that must be validated before converters and other validators
On 11/1/07, Bruno Borges [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
isn't this a reason to start with that talk again Igor, about replacing
setRequired with an IValidator?
