Hi Jeff,
the problem with the t:panelNavigation2/-tag can be reproduced as follows:
I defined a tiles template containing a t:panelNavigation2/
f:view
h:form
t:div id=menu forceId=true
t:div id=lftBar forceId=true
f:loadBundle
Hi Jeff,
testing again the current version bevor taliking about bugs is a great idea ;)
The problem for beginners like me is, that on the myFaces website is
described, that the fastest way to get a project up and running is to
take one of the example-apps (in my case the tiles-app) and take
Hi Rudi, comments inline.
[2] http://people.apache.org/builds/myfaces/nightly/
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1414
Rudi Steiner wrote:
Hi Jeff,
testing again the current version bevor taliking about bugs is a great
idea ;)
The problem for beginners like me is, that on
Hello,
thanks a lot to everybody.
@Mike: I removed on form on the page and wrap all the formcontent by
one form-element. So this problem is resolved.
But valuating the new page, I get the following error for the markup
rendered by the t:datatable/ - tag :
Error Line 85 column 83: character [
Hi Rudi,
can you post the relevant jsf code,
this looks not like a jsf generated id.
Regards,
Volker
2007/4/4, Rudi Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
thanks a lot to everybody.
@Mike: I removed on form on the page and wrap all the formcontent by
one form-element. So this problem is
Hi Volker,
the jsf code is the following:
t:dataTable
forceId=true
id=dataTable
width=100%
styleClass=standardTable
headerClass=standardTable_Header
You need to post the page code generating this particular output:
...dardTable_Columnspan id=ot_servId[0]41315/span/tdtd class=standar
It's not being generated by t:dataTable directly.
On 4/4/07, Rudi Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
thanks a lot to everybody.
@Mike: I removed on
Hi Mike,
sorry for my fast reply. The problem isn't resolved. Also when I use
just one form-element in my page there is still a second form
generated by the framework with the following id
form id=linkDummyForm name=linkDummyForm ...
This form contains the hidden field
input type=hidden
I don't think that linkDummyForm exists in newer releases. You can
try upgrading to MyFaces 1.1.5 and Tomahawk 1.1.5.
From what I remember, the linkDummyForm is created when you try to use
JSF elements outside of your h:form tag. I don't remember if it was
created conditionally or
Ridu, what version of MyFaces and Tomahawk are you using?
DummyForms were once used to allow commandLinks and other components to
function despite not being within a form. Recent versions have
eliminated the DummyForm because it was incompatible with the RI way of
doing things [1]. All such
I'm sorry I meant to say Rudi. ;)
Jeff Bischoff wrote:
Ridu, what version of MyFaces and Tomahawk are you using?
Hi all,
since my chef ask me about XHTML or HTML 4.0 compliance of the
generated HTML-output of MyFaces, today I made some investigations.
I figured out that the generated markup is not far from XHTML but some
components render invalid markup.
Some examples:
t:panelNavigation2 / renders the
Hi Rudi,
as far as i know, myfaces is supposed to render xhtml compliant output.
The 2 things you mentions are most probably bugs and should be fixed.
You should report the to the myfaces issue tracker :)
At least, your panelnavigation one is already reported:
Definitely open JIRA issues (preferrably with patches) for all but one
of these items.
Error Line 101 column 165: ID jsf_tree_64 already defined.
The above will not be fixed -- this element must exist and be
submitted in every form. However, it's bad practice to use multiple
forms on a
On 4/3/07, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Definitely open JIRA issues (preferrably with patches) for all but one
of these items.
Error Line 101 column 165: ID jsf_tree_64 already defined.
The above will not be fixed -- this element must exist and be
submitted in every form.
Jorn,
I don't know if the id is required by the spec or not. Or if there's
some reason why it's required by the MyFaces implementation. If you
want to look into that and report back on your findings, maybe we can
consider changing it. I know that identical hidden fields must be
present for
16 matches
Mail list logo
