Le 09/11/2011 11:23, Martin Grigorov a écrit :
- DataTable : a SPAN is always added in the TD and TH.
>>> Override DataTable component and provide your own MyDataTable.html.
>>> The .java code will just call super constructors.
>> As said before, I don't feel very confident in duplicating wick
Le 10/11/2011 16:11, Martin Grigorov a écrit :
> I just tested in Wicket 1.5 quickstart and it produced
> (no auto close of the start tag).
Can you explain your test ?
I'v just downloaded the wicket 1.5.2 package (zip version with sources)
and I see that HeaderResponse#renderCSSReference(Stri
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Pierre Goiffon
wrote:
> Le 10/11/2011 14:58, Martin Grigorov a écrit :
>
> I thought that any self closing tag was invalid in any html version,
> html 4 as of html 5.
>
> But the validator is ok with self closing br and link in html 5, and the
> html 5 draft recomm
Le 10/11/2011 14:58, Martin Grigorov a écrit :
I thought that any self closing tag was invalid in any html version,
html 4 as of html 5.
But the validator is ok with self closing br and link in html 5, and the
html 5 draft recommandation says very clearly self closing tags are
allowed for "void e
Le 10/11/2011 10:33, Martijn Dashorst a écrit :
> While technically closing a tag is
> considered a validation error (I tried the html validator of w3c, see
> below), in practice the HTML 4.01 standard is really crippled, as are
> the other HTML standards from that time.
Can you provide us some d
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Pierre Goiffon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 10/11/2011 09:29, Martin Grigorov a écrit :
>> So you say that is valid but is not.
>
> I thought that any self closing tag was invalid in any html version,
> html 4 as of html 5.
>
> But the validator is ok with self closing br
Hi,
Le 10/11/2011 09:29, Martin Grigorov a écrit :
> So you say that is valid but is not.
I thought that any self closing tag was invalid in any html version,
html 4 as of html 5.
But the validator is ok with self closing br and link in html 5, and the
html 5 draft recommandation says very c
Just to be clear: we live the xhtml validated markup dream and it
sucks. You can't use anything browsers have added since 2001. Stuff
that makes users happy: autofocus, placeholder text, no autofill. We
modified our xhtml validator to support these cases (and to choke on
other invalid markup) since
While I usually enjoy painting a bike shed, and this is one perfect
example of mine being green, the 4.01 specification is from 1999,
which is 12 years ago. While technically closing a tag is
considered a validation error (I tried the html validator of w3c, see
below), in practice the HTML 4.01 st
"in HTML the tag has no end tag" may it be enough to confirm
is perfectly valid in html, and not the opposite.
.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> I'm interested in a specification saying that is invalid in HTML4.
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:39 AM, manuelbarzi wro
I'm interested in a specification saying that is invalid in HTML4.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:39 AM, manuelbarzi wrote:
> in HTML the tag has no end tag.
> in XHTML the tag must be properly closed.
>
> source: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_link.asp
>
> .
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:29
in HTML the tag has no end tag.
in XHTML the tag must be properly closed.
source: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_link.asp
.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>
> So you say that is valid but is not.
> Both of them are void elements. Why is this difference in handli
So you say that is valid but is not.
Both of them are void elements. Why is this difference in handling them ?
Can you provide a link to specification where they say that
is invalid in HTML4 ?
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
> pgoiffon.wic...@free.fr a écrit :
>
>> I was convinced t
pgoiffon.wic...@free.fr a écrit :
I was convinced that HTML5 is still HTML, so auto-closed tags are
invalid. I checked the html 5 draft recommandation this morning before
answering and can't find anywhere that auto closed tags are valid.
Found it !
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#syn
Martin Grigorov a écrit :
The problem is that there are several specifications and all of them
expect different output.
We try to stick to HTML5 because this is the future.
You mean, HTML 5 in Wicket 1.5 ?
Yes, in Wicket 1.5.
Wicket 1.4.x branch receives only bug fixes and only major ones
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:12 PM, wrote:
> Le 08/11/2011 16:43, Martin Grigorov a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>
> Hello, thanks very much for your quick answer !
>
>> The problem is that there are several specifications and all of them
>> expect different output.
>> We try to stick to HTML5 because thi
Le 08/11/2011 16:43, Martin Grigorov a écrit :
Hi,
Hello, thanks very much for your quick answer !
The problem is that there are several specifications and all of them
expect different output.
We try to stick to HTML5 because this is the future.
You mean, HTML 5 in Wicket 1.5 ? I tryed to f
Hi,
The problem is that there are several specifications and all of them
expect different output.
We try to stick to HTML5 because this is the future.
See below.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Pierre Goiffon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working as a developper for a software company that build some
Hello,
I'm working as a developper for a software company that build some
products using Wicket 1.4 (1.4.17 for the moment being).
I'm trying to improve accessibility in our online survey product. The
first thing I did was to check our pages with the W3C validator
(http://validator.w3.org),
19 matches
Mail list logo
