Hi Rickard, Jeff:
Apologies for the delay in replying; a number of other distractions.
I will need to clarify with the 053 expert group and we will get back to
you after that. JSP 1.2 PFD shoiuld have clarified the situation but
unfortunately has not; we will fix this in the next draft.
I am currently on a trip, but I am composing a message to the expert
group and will send it to the expert group shortly after I send this
one to you.
Hopefully we will get this settled within this next week (that of Feb
12th).
Thanks for being persistent!
- eduard/o
Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart wrote:
>
> Rickard Öberg wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > (CC'ed to jsp-spec-comments again)
> >
> > Jeff Turner wrote:
> > > > My interpretation of this is:
> > > > * Tag "foo" may have body
> > > > * <x:foo>Blah</x:foo> -> body methods called
> > > > * <x:foo/> -> no body methods called
> > >
> > > This looks like the crux of the issue. Do you agree that according to the XML
> > > spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-starttags),
> > > <x:foo></x:foo> and <x:foo/> are exactly equivalent?
> >
> > Yes, agree.
> >
> > > Here is the spec's definition of an empty element:
> > >
> > > [Definition:] If an element is empty, it must be represented either by a
> > > start-tag immediately followed by an end-tag or by an empty-element tag.
> >
> > Actually no (the text you quoted is not in the above spec text). The
> > relevant quote from the spec you refer to above is:
> > "[Definition: An element with no content is said to be empty.] The
> > representation of an empty element is either a start-tag immediately
> > followed by an end-tag, or an empty-element tag. [Definition: An
> > empty-element tag takes a special form:]"
> >
> > So, <x:foo></x:foo> and <x:foo/> are both empty elements.
> >
> > > Further, here's Tim Bray's comment from the annotated XML spec
> > > (http://www.xml.com/axml/target.html#sec-starttags):
> > >
> > > "So, is this: <img src='madonna.gif'></img> really exactly the same as <img
> > > src='madonna.gif'/>? As far as XML is concerned, they are."
> > >
> > > So, if they mean exactly the same thing, why should the JSP engine
> > > discriminate in which methods it calls? Below, you agree that with
> > > <x:foo></x:foo>, the doBody() methods should be called. Since <x:foo/> means
> > > exactly the same thing, for consistency the JSP engine should also call the
> > > doBody() methods.
> >
> > Well, not really. Either <x:foo></x:foo> is the same thing as <x:foo/>,
> > or <x:foo> is the same thing as <x:foo></x:foo>. Do you see the
> > difference?
> >
> > The first represent the view you have provided, and the latter is mine.
> > >From the XML spec point of view the latter is correct (see above spec
> > quote for reference, and consider the consequences of it).
> >
> > > > > Note, "can have", not "if it does have". So an element without a body,
> > > > > but that *could* have a body according to the TLD, still has do*Body
> > > > > methods called.
> > > >
> > > > ... if it has a body *in the usage of it*, sure. Of course. But if it's
> > > > not *used* with a body, then the body methods should not be called.
> > >
> > > Nowhere does it say "in the usage of it". It says "if an action element can
> > > have a non-empty body". Now, the TLD declares that x:foo *can have* a
> > > non-empty body if it wants to. In the usages <x:foo></x:foo> and <x:foo/>, it
> > > just happens not to.
> >
> > Haha, you are twisting words I think :-)
> >
> > Let's try this, and see where we disagree:
> > * x:foo is a tag that has TLD "bodycontent" set to "JSP"
> > * According to XML 1.0 2nd ed, "Contents of Elements", <x:foo></x:foo>
> > and <x:foo/> are both empty elements.
> > * Thus, using "<x:foo></x:foo>" in a JSP page is the same as "<x:foo/>"
> > * "<x:foo/>" means to "use x:foo tag without body content"
> > * To "use x:foo without body content" is equal to "use x:foo as an
> > empty tag", since <x:foo></x:foo> and <x:foo/> are both empty elements
> > * According to JSP 1.1 p. 104: "setBodyContent..will not be invoked if
> > there is no body evaluation"
> > * According to JSP 1.1 p. 104: "doInitBody..[is] not invoked in empty
> > tags.."
> > * According to JSP 1.1 p. 104: "doAfterBody..[is] not invoked in empty
> > tags.."
> > * Thus, <x:foo/>(usage=="<x:foo></x:foo>"||"<x:foo/>") receives calls
> > differently depending on if it is used as an empty tag or a tag with a
> > body.
> >
> > Do you disagree with the above?
> > If so, where do you think I'm wrong?
> >
> > > > > Eg, in JRun the following action breaks:
> > > > >
> > > > > <util:include url="foo.html"/>
> > > >
> > > > Why? How is this tag dependent on a body to be supplied?
> > >
> > > Um :) It does seem a bit pointless in the util taglib's case. I'll cc the
> > > > Why? How is this tag dependent on a body to be supplied?
> > >
> > > Um :) It does seem a bit pointless in the util taglib's case.
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > Thanks for the discussion. I hope you agree that the outcome is quite
> > important.
> >
> > regards,
> > Rickard
> >
> > --
> > Rickard Öberg
> >
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
