How important is it for you that <wicket:xx> tags are included in the output? IMO it is useful for debugging and development. But how often do you need to look at it and the wicket tags therein, even during development? If setStripWicketTag(TRUE) would/does what it is meant to do, and the value be mostly true during development, than it shouldn't be a problem. correct? Shouldn't we than try to fix the setStripWicketTag() issue instead?
Juergen On 7/28/05, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm.. This does sound logical. But then we should use doctype of the > component (inherited page) and put it in front, ignoring the doctype of > the parent page. I understand, but IMO it is too much of magic. Will it be clear to every user? javadoc would be like: "..for the inherited component everything outside of <wicket:extend> does get ignored, except the doctype. Whereas for the base markup, the doctype gets allways ignored, except if there is no doctype in the inherited markup..(or shall it be ignored than as well?) ". What do you think about creating a new setting like setStripWicketExtendTags(true/false). Though it is a little bit confusing as well, you'd still have wicket tags in output during development, but wicket:extend would be removed. Juergen ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user