Thanks Emond, that looks very helpful. I'm a bit overwhelmed at this point, having started learning Wicket on Wednesday and by now almost having a bare bones application. Nice little surprises along the way...
On 9/17/10, Emond Papegaaij <emond.papega...@topicus.nl> wrote: > Hi Ichiro, > > If you want to enforce valid XHTML, take a look at the WicketStuff HTML > Validator: http://github.com/dashorst/wicket-stuff-markup-validator > > It automatically validates all pages served by the application and shows an > error report for invalid markup. > > Best regards, > Emond Papegaaij > > On Thursday 16 September 2010 03:50:35 Ichiro Furusato wrote: >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id >> in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so, >> I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what >> else I've seen in Wicket). >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ichiro >> >> On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson <jer...@wickettraining.com> wrote: >> > 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
