Sent this email few hours ago, but it didn't make it to the list, so re-trying (sorry!)
On 5/3/05, luca passani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip/> > OK, I buy it that this is an explanation of why includes of non well-formed > tags don't work. > > Questions: > > - isn't this a pointless limitation? are there real technical reasons for > this? > > - this should be more prominently documented in the JSP specs, IMO. I must > have reads > descriptions like the one you posted tens of times and I never interpreted > that > to mean that included JSP files need be well-formed XML > Spec related questions/comments will be best addressed in the appropriate forum i.e. jsp-spec-public [ https://jsp-spec-public.dev.java.net/ ] I think of includes as independent compilation (if needed) units. Custom tags are more concise, better maintained and nest, validate more easily compared to includes for the kind of end effect you're trying to achieve i.e. instead of: <%@ include file="start_a_tag.inc" %> <tag:b/> <%@ include file="end_a_tag.inc" %> I'd author a wrapper tag like so: <my:wrapper> <tag:b/> </my:wrapper> where wrapper.tag looks like: <%-- taglib, attr, page decls, JSP elements, template text etc. as needed --%> <tag:a> <%-- you could do more with jsp:doBody --%> <jsp:doBody /> </tag:a> <%-- remaining JSP elements, template text etc. --%> And, this implies JSP 2.0 ;-) Let me know how it goes. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
