I would tend to agree with Craig in that if we can't do it correctly, then let's not do it.

Using the Struts taglibs provided with the core distribution is not a technical requirement. Other taglibs and technologies are just as easy to use with Struts as those we bundle in the distribution.

If there is really a need for a set of tags that can render some type of "transitional" XHTML, then that can be done as a third party contribution or through the contrib folder. But the tags in our core distribution should strictly observe the specification and any of its recommendations.

-Ted.

Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, David Graham wrote:

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 23:35:27 -0700
From: David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: xhtml javascript hiding methods

Well, here are the choices as I understand them:

1.  Use CDATA to hide the javascript and make it completely useless in
current browsers.

2.  Use a comment to hide the javascript which allows current browsers to
work and xml parsers.

The xhtml spec does suggest using CDATA but I don't see a reason the comment
method won't work.


If you are using XML-based technologies like XSLT to transform things to
create your output pages, the "commented out" text inside a <script>
element is going to get dropped on the floor.

What I also don't understand is why anybody is worried about generating
XHTML markup for the current generation of popular browsers, none of which
implement it correctly ... but that's a different issue.


Dave

Craig


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



--
Ted Husted,
Struts in Action <http://husted.com/struts/book.html>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to