There is a chance that this question is going to be perceived as heretical, but I feel that I either need to speak now or hold my peace.
Is XHTML really a good choice for the file extension and doctype for Facelets templates? Consider my argument. When we use xhtml as a file extension and include the xhtml doctype, we are saying, "This file validates as XHTML." Well, with all those Facelets tags in there, it sure doesn't. If you use the "jsfc" attribute of Facelets to augment a file that really is XHTML, then maybe that small violation is not so bad. But when the root tag of the file is ui:composition, you are beginning to stray pretty far from the path. Let me make a suggestion. We can all agree that Facelets templates must be valid XML. JSPX is a valid XML syntax that we can use. But it is sort of verbose and again, we are mixing meanings. How about a new file extension, one that won't confuse the IDEs. How about (f)acelet (c)omposition (t)emplate (FCT)? But then again, should we tie ourselves to Facelets or have a "generic" page extension? I swear, I am not trying to stir the pot for no good reason. It just seems that calling files XHTML when they aren't isn't such a good idea. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4048515#4048515 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4048515 _______________________________________________ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
