David
From: "Hajratwala, Nayan (N.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Struts Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:18:57 -0500
I think it would be worth investigating whether or not XHTML is fully backward compatible with HTML 4.01 (which i think it is), and then ONLY rendering XHTML, and forgetting about HTML altogether. Of course, this would have the be a version 2.0 enhancement because it would likely break some people's pages.
Anyone agree?
---
- Nayan Hajratwala
- Chikli Consulting LLC
- http://www.chikli.com
-----Original Message-----
From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
Ok, I think I agree with the non-body tag setting a page scoped attribute.
I really like the style of <html:xhtml/> over <html:isXhtml/>. The "is"
part indicates that it's a question rather than stating that we're using
xhtml.
Regardless, I'll get the changes in soon so people can start playing with
it.
David
>From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:10:29 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
>
> > What would <html:isXhtml/> do?
>
>This would be the way Craig was seeking for an included page to tell its
>own Struts tags whether to render XHTML or plain HTML. It would set a
>*page* context attribute, which the subsequent tags on that page would
>check.
>
>As a corollary, the <html:html xhtml="true"> tag should set the key in
>*page* scope rather than request scope, so that each page has to make its
>own decision.
>
> >
> > If we're going to use a tag I think it should be like this:
> > <html:xhtml>
> > <html:form>
> > <html:text/>
> > </html:form>
> > </html:xhtml>
>
>Do you mean a separate tag from the <html:html> tag, instead of using
><html:html xhtml="true">, or are you referring to another tag for the
>XHTML-ness ;-) of the content? If the former, I'm not sure why we would
>want that. If the latter, I disagree that it should be a body tag, since
>it needs to be an all-or-nothing tag, not one that applies only to its
>body.
>
> >
> > Any tag inside <html:xhtml> would be rendered as xhtml. This tag would
>only
> > be useful for jsp included files.
> >
> > Another question: what if <html:xhtml> is nested inside
> > <html:html xhtml="false">?
>
>I think we should probably log a warning. In many cases, the resulting
>output will work, but we need to flag that there's a potential problem.
>
>--
>Martin Cooper
>
>
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> > >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:29:21 -0800 (PST)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Graham wrote:
> > >
> > > > What if we just forgot about the <html:xhtml> tag altogether? If an
> > > > included jsp wants to use xhtml they can set the Globals.XHTML_KEY
> > >request
> > > > parameter to true.
> > >
> > >How would you propose to do that without using scriptlets, and without
> > >"knowing" the value of the key?
> > >
> > >I think perhaps a <html:isXhtml/> tag is the most straightforward
> > >solution.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Martin Cooper
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that the currently implemented solution works for
>people
> > >using
> > > > <html:html> in a jsp and for people using tiles where they can have
>a
> > > > layout.jsp like this:
> > > >
> > > > <html:html xhtml="true">
> > > > <tiles:insert attribute="body"/>
> > > > </html:html>
> > > >
> > > > What's left is how to accomodate people using jsp includes. What do
>you
> > > > think?
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >Subject: RE: [VOTE] How to implement XHMTL support
> > > > >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:06:56 -0800
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What if we did this:
> > > > > > 1. Store a boolean in the request under Globals.XHTML_KEY
> > > > > > 2. <html:html xhtml="true"> would set the boolean to true
> > > > > > 3. <html:xhtml> (new tag) would set the boolean to true
> > > > > > 4. People could manually set the request attribute if they
> > > > > > choose and
> > > > > > realize potential problems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This frees you from using <html:html>, and allows included
> > > > > > jsps to set their
> > > > > > xhtml status independently of the outer page.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does this accomodate everyone's needs?
> > > > >
> > > > >Well, I have no "needs" for this, just opinions :) .
> > > > >
> > > > >Despite the simplicity of "html:xhtml", I think the name should be
>a
> > > > >little more different from "html:html". I used the example of
> > > > >"html:useXhtml" to try to make it clearer that the tag isn't
>generating
> > > > >a HTML tag, and is pretty different from "html:html".
> > > > >
> > > > >Also (from your other note), if any tags nested (even through
> > > > >"jsp:include") in <html:html xhtml="false"> will NOT use xhtml,
>then
> > > > >that implies that the other tag also needs a "true/false"
>attribute, as
> > > > >opposed to having no attributes (which would imply the tag's
>presence
> > > > >implies "true").
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> > > > >For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
> > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> > >For additional commands, e-mail:
> > ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail:
><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
