myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randahl Fink Isaksen <rand...@rockit.dk>
Subject Re: MyFaces renders a space in <br /> - can I turn that off?
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:10:11 GMT
We totally agree - it was in no way my intention to state that the <br 
/> output is invalid XML, but it sure looks odd or, in your words, not 
customary. I am using MyFaces with facelets where it is customary to 
output handwritten XHTML tags in your view xml files, and when I 
handwrite a br tag it is of course written <br/>, so next to the <br /> 
tags from MyFaces it shows that the output is a mixture of syntaxes.

Has anyone else got some comments about tag output customization before 
we move on to filing an RFE somewhere?

Randahl




Jeff Bischoff wrote:
> Randahl Fink Isaksen wrote:
>> Because it also states here
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html/#h-4.6
>>
>> That the correct way to write empty tags like br is <br/> with no space. 
>
> I see nothing in section 4.6 of the linked document that supports your 
> assertion. What it actually says is:
>
> "Empty elements must either have an end tag or the start tag must end 
> with />."
>
> So, as far as the XHTML standard is concerned, all of the following 
> are valid:
>
> <br/>
> <br />
> <br   />
> <br></br>
>
> > You can compare this to the problem with <script/> not working on IE.
> > The intermediate solution is to output <script></script>, which works
> > fine. But as soon as IE7 has found its way to most IE users, I think it
> > is time to output the tag in the correct way, namely <script/>.
>
> These are both valid expressions of the tag under the spec. I think 
> perhaps you are saying "correct" where it would be more accurate to 
> say "customary." Are the minimized forms cleaner, nicer, more elegant? 
> I would say yes. But that does not make the other forms incorrect.
>
> In any case, I see nothing wrong with having the option to output in 
> different forms. (e.g. compatible, minimized) After all, we do have 
> the PRETTY_HTML option in tomahawk already. So clearly some of us at 
> least are concerned about the appearance of the generated code. Maybe 
> you can get some support for your idea and get some dev involved. 
> Otherwise, you would be stuck having to provide a patch yourself.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff Bischoff
> Kenneth L Kurz & Associates, Inc.
>
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message