Sorry, I've been told by the corporate powers that be that I have to use this dung heap because it's a committee approved standard, so I was attempting to find something good about it. When I came across the flexible rendering concept, I thought I had found something. But if I have to write it all myself, what's the use? (*Chris*)
On 9/10/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you're looking for an argument, try somewhere else :-) If you want > help accomplishing something specific, ask. > > I think there are 24 standard tags defined. That means there's > somewhere around (infinity-24) tags that are not defined. That's > why JSF supports creating your own components. > > If you want to use JSF, it's easy to create your own anchor tag and > define separate renderers for Html, OpenDoc, Microsoft Word Documents, > and PDF Documents. > > > On 9/10/07, Chris Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Chris Pratt a écrit : > > > > I'm trying to use Standard JSF (without using <f:verbatim>) to > > > > generate our web pages, but I can't figure out how to generate an > > > > anchor point (<a name="anchor">Top</a>). Is there a standard tag that > > > > can do this? > > > > (*Chris*) > > > > > > On 9/10/07, David Delbecq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't see the need for a JSF tag for this. if you really don't want to > > > go f:verbatim, either choose tht tomahawk htmlTag tag, use facelets or > > > create your own "ancho" component. > > > > > > > I was told that the power of the flexible rendering model of JSF was > > that, by simply changing the RenderKit, you could re-target the output > > to different devices, that didn't necessarily understand HTML. I'm > > wondering how that can be possible if you can't even specify the > > target of a link using a standard syntax? > > (*Chris*) > > >
