yeah, all that api is public. you can install your own IMarkupFilter that does what you want. of course it will badly conflict with components that werent written with this in mind, thus why this is a bad idea.
-igor On 4/23/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Imo, that would only mean confusion. But if you want to interpret normal ids as Wicket ids as well, you might be able to do so if you would be willing to dig deep. Eeloc On 4/23/07, Bruno Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know these reasons Igor. Is just that for very simple cases, it would be > handy if wicket could lookup for ids, if wicket:id is not there. > > On 4/24/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > there are a lot of reasons for this. the few that come to mind are: > > > > designers want control over the id attribute for css styling > > > > wicket:id allows duplicates in markup while id doesnt, so validation would > > fail. > > > > <link wicket:id="a"><span wicket:id="a"></span></a> is allowed. > > > > it is cleaner to use our own namespaced attribute to avoid interference. > > > > -igor > > > > > > On 4/23/07, Bruno Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I couldn't find any thread related to this in the archives, probably > > > because > > > the terms "id", "style" and "wicket:id" :) > > > But, did anyone ever asked to Wicket just use the style id instead > > > wicket:id > > > to bind components? If yes, where is the thread? If not, ... why not > > allow > > > this? :D > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > PS: I posted an article in my blog about Wicket (in portuguese) at > > > blog.brunoborges.com.br > > > -- > > > Bruno Borges > > > Summa Technologies Inc. > > > www.summa-tech.com > > > (48) 8404-1300 > > > (11) 3055-2060 > > > > > > > > > -- > Bruno Borges > Summa Technologies Inc. > www.summa-tech.com > (48) 8404-1300 > (11) 3055-2060 >
