On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato <ichiro.furus...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi, > > I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding > what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the clients > I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types > are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned > I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects. > > What I'll call "the Wicket XHTML DTD" is referenced as the XML namespace > URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated > DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only, > even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD. > Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be > valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD. > > It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket > XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.: > > This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers: > > PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" > SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"; > > but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema: > the addition of some "wicket:" prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;. > > It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header > comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified > the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to > the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be > inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes > occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and > will not validate according to that DTD. > > There are a few questions/comments that come from the above: > > 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing? > Would removing them break existing functionality? > > 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a > simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes? > > 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT > stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based > on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply > the code supporting that feature. > > 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to > supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then > "flattened" (converted into one file) based on some tools I've > written. > This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and > be appropriately named, e.g., > > -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN > > This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web > pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were > stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce > valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible. > > Some clarification on this would be most appreciated, > > Thanks, > > Ichiro > > PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to > Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what > should not be rocket science. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is "wicket:id", which will automatically be removed from your HTML in deployment mode. So, use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict XHTML is what will be rendered. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com
