2005/10/16, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Not sure I understand your last comments. In order to reproduce the
bug, I need the relevant details though. Are you able to provide a
stripped down example to me (may be even a unit test like the ones we
are using in src/test/wicket/markup/parser/filter/*..*9. That would
make my/our life much easier. Thanks.
Juergen
On 10/16/05, Arto Arffman < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll test it, but ...
> > ... a PAGE template (not sure you meant it like that) (excluding
> > inherited page markup as well) must not have a <wicket:head> tag. The
> > purpose of <wicket:head> is for components to contribute to the page's
> > <head> tag. Pages don't need that. They simply add directly to <head>.
> > ... Just to add "... _javascript_ to head-section ..." you need no
> > AjaxHandler IMO. That is exactly what <wicket:head> is about. Just add
> > what you want to be contributed to <head> to <wicket:head> of your
> > components markup. Provided the _javascript_ you want to add is static
> > and doesn't change. But again, this might be again a misunderstanding
> > due to the "example"
>
> yes, i know. I should have said that this is a bug. But i wasn't 100% sure
> when i wrote the original mail.
>
> The component needs the AjaxHandler (i wont go into details). The page needs
> <wicket:head> if it uses markup inheritance.
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
