You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de> on 2007/05/27 22:10:34 UTC
wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
Hi,
i've come across a behaviour, that IMHO is wrong:
when i have a wicket label e.g:
HTML:
<div wicket:id="foo"> bla bla </div>
adn use it as new Label("foo", "bar") in dev, he puts out:
result: <div wicket:id="foo">bar</div>
wich is right; however if i do:
getMarkupSettings().setStripWicketTags(true);
in the init he puts out:
result: <div>bar</div>
which is blowing up HTML-output for nothing - IMHO if the tags are empty
after the wicket:id has been stripped they should be removed completely.
Is this behavoir intention or a bug?
AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
Posted by Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de>.
Hi Martinj,
i only want to do it for empty <div>'s - not any other tag. So how can I
strip out any empty <div>-tag without hurting used ones?
> If you *really* want to do this, why not create a visitor
> that calls setRenderBodyOnly on your child components?
how would I do this?
Regards
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Martijn Dashorst [mailto:martijn.dashorst@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. Mai 2007 22:46
> An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
>
> On 5/27/07, Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:
> >
> > hmm, makes sense - there is no global way to get rid of
> these empty div's ?
> > (putting a .setRenderBodyOnly(true) to every seems quite a pain)
>
> I really don't know why you want to do this:
>
> <td wicket:id="foo">[foo]</td>
>
> <tr wicket:id="foo"><td wicket:id="bar"></td></tr>
>
> new ListView("foo", ...) {
> protected void populateItem(Item item) {
> item.add(new Label("bar", "bar"));
> }
> }
>
> should this remove the tags too?
>
> If you *really* want to do this, why not create a visitor
> that calls setRenderBodyOnly on your child components?
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
Re: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 5/27/07, Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:
>
> hmm, makes sense - there is no global way to get rid of these empty div's ?
> (putting a .setRenderBodyOnly(true) to every seems quite a pain)
I really don't know why you want to do this:
<td wicket:id="foo">[foo]</td>
<tr wicket:id="foo"><td wicket:id="bar"></td></tr>
new ListView("foo", ...) {
protected void populateItem(Item item) {
item.add(new Label("bar", "bar"));
}
}
should this remove the tags too?
If you *really* want to do this, why not create a visitor that calls
setRenderBodyOnly on your child components?
Martijn
--
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
AW: AW: AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
Posted by Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de>.
Hi,
well, i prefer plain, straight html without any tables (only tables if they
are really necessary which is quite rare) and the only thing an empty <div>
does is to put a blank line before and after it (see W3C definition) wich is
sth. IMHO the <p> tag is sufficent for.
2; well - I don't - and the thing here from the origin post was based on a
mistake by me... in fact, the empty div's came from an RepeatingView
container who just ignores the .setRenderBodyOnly(true) ... (see my post in
wicket user list for details). I now understand why wicket cant strip the
tags by default, but need to find a solution for the RepeatingView (i use it
in a BasePage or for dynamic forms - but get loads of empty divs because of
that)
Regards
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Herman Bovens [mailto:herman.bovens@chello.be]
> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2007 15:02
> An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
>
>
> 1) OK, but doesn't it render differently then?
> 2) Do you use DIV e.g. inside TD tags? I think you
> shouldn't: just add the wicket:id to the TD tag. But then of
> course you don't want the TD tag to disappear, so you use an
> ordinary Label instead of the subclass.
>
>
> Korbinian Bachl wrote:
> >
> >
> > 1; the label was just an example - the reason I choose
> <div> is that
> > is invalid for certain surroundings while <div> is always valid
> >
> > 2; no - in all cases where <div> is solo and empty it is
> very bad html
> > output IMHO to have empty <div>'s - they allways should
> have at least
> > any kind of descriptor/ tag in them
> >
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Herman Bovens [mailto:herman.bovens@chello.be]
> >> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2007 01:19
> >> An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Betreff: Re: AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) I think you should only use a <div> tag if you
> want one. I
> >> usually use <span> for labels.
> >> 2) If removing the tag is what you want, I assume that's only for
> >> labels and only in some cases. Why not create a subclass of Label
> >> which calls
> >> setRenderBodyOnly(true) in the constructor?
> >>
> >>
> >> Korbinian Bachl wrote:
> >> >
> >> > hmm, makes sense - there is no global way to get rid of
> these empty
> >> > div's ?
> >> > (putting a .setRenderBodyOnly(true) to every seems quite a pain)
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >> http://www.nabble.com/wicket-1.3.0-snapshot---wicket-tags-in-d
> > iv-tf3824821.html#a10829469
> >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/wicket-1.3.0-snapshot---wicket-tags-in-d
iv-tf3824821.html#a10835894
> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: AW: AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
Posted by Herman Bovens <he...@chello.be>.
1) OK, but doesn't it render differently then?
2) Do you use DIV e.g. inside TD tags? I think you shouldn't: just add the
wicket:id to the TD tag. But then of course you don't want the TD tag to
disappear, so you use an ordinary Label instead of the subclass.
Korbinian Bachl wrote:
>
>
> 1; the label was just an example - the reason I choose <div> is that
> is invalid for certain surroundings while <div> is always valid
>
> 2; no - in all cases where <div> is solo and empty it is very bad html
> output IMHO to have empty <div>'s - they allways should have at least any
> kind of descriptor/ tag in them
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Herman Bovens [mailto:herman.bovens@chello.be]
>> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2007 01:19
>> An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
>>
>>
>> 1) I think you should only use a <div> tag if you want
>> one. I usually use <span> for labels.
>> 2) If removing the tag is what you want, I assume that's only
>> for labels and only in some cases. Why not create a subclass
>> of Label which calls
>> setRenderBodyOnly(true) in the constructor?
>>
>>
>> Korbinian Bachl wrote:
>> >
>> > hmm, makes sense - there is no global way to get rid of these empty
>> > div's ?
>> > (putting a .setRenderBodyOnly(true) to every seems quite a pain)
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/wicket-1.3.0-snapshot---wicket-tags-in-d
> iv-tf3824821.html#a10829469
>> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/wicket-1.3.0-snapshot---wicket-tags-in-div-tf3824821.html#a10835894
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
AW: AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
Posted by Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de>.
1; the label was just an example - the reason I choose <div> is that <span>
is invalid for certain surroundings while <div> is always valid
2; no - in all cases where <div> is solo and empty it is very bad html
output IMHO to have empty <div>'s - they allways should have at least any
kind of descriptor/ tag in them
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Herman Bovens [mailto:herman.bovens@chello.be]
> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2007 01:19
> An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
>
>
> 1) I think you should only use a <div> tag if you want
> one. I usually use <span> for labels.
> 2) If removing the tag is what you want, I assume that's only
> for labels and only in some cases. Why not create a subclass
> of Label which calls
> setRenderBodyOnly(true) in the constructor?
>
>
> Korbinian Bachl wrote:
> >
> > hmm, makes sense - there is no global way to get rid of these empty
> > div's ?
> > (putting a .setRenderBodyOnly(true) to every seems quite a pain)
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/wicket-1.3.0-snapshot---wicket-tags-in-d
iv-tf3824821.html#a10829469
> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
Posted by Herman Bovens <he...@chello.be>.
1) I think you should only use a <div> tag if you want one. I usually
use <span> for labels.
2) If removing the tag is what you want, I assume that's only for labels and
only in some cases. Why not create a subclass of Label which calls
setRenderBodyOnly(true) in the constructor?
Korbinian Bachl wrote:
>
> hmm, makes sense - there is no global way to get rid of these empty div's
> ?
> (putting a .setRenderBodyOnly(true) to every seems quite a pain)
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/wicket-1.3.0-snapshot---wicket-tags-in-div-tf3824821.html#a10829469
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
AW: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
Posted by Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de>.
hmm, makes sense - there is no global way to get rid of these empty div's ?
(putting a .setRenderBodyOnly(true) to every seems quite a pain)
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Martijn Dashorst [mailto:martijn.dashorst@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. Mai 2007 22:13
> An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
>
> Intention. Read the javadocs.
>
> What you are proposing is changing the meaning of the
> document without any idea: what would happen if:
> <h1 wicket:id="foo">[foo]</h1>
>
> is used? Would setStripWicketTags remove the <h1> too?
>
> Component#setRenderBodyOnly(boolean) is what you are looking for.
>
> Martijn
>
> On 5/27/07, Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i've come across a behaviour, that IMHO is wrong:
> >
> > when i have a wicket label e.g:
> >
> > HTML:
> >
> > <div wicket:id="foo"> bla bla </div>
> >
> > adn use it as new Label("foo", "bar") in dev, he puts out:
> >
> > result: <div wicket:id="foo">bar</div>
> >
> > wich is right; however if i do:
> > getMarkupSettings().setStripWicketTags(true);
> >
> > in the init he puts out:
> >
> > result: <div>bar</div>
> >
> > which is blowing up HTML-output for nothing - IMHO if the tags are
> > empty after the wicket:id has been stripped they should be
> removed completely.
> >
> > Is this behavoir intention or a bug?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
Re: wicket 1.3.0 snapshot / wicket tags in div
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Intention. Read the javadocs.
What you are proposing is changing the meaning of the document without
any idea: what would happen if:
<h1 wicket:id="foo">[foo]</h1>
is used? Would setStripWicketTags remove the <h1> too?
Component#setRenderBodyOnly(boolean) is what you are looking for.
Martijn
On 5/27/07, Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i've come across a behaviour, that IMHO is wrong:
>
> when i have a wicket label e.g:
>
> HTML:
>
> <div wicket:id="foo"> bla bla </div>
>
> adn use it as new Label("foo", "bar") in dev, he puts out:
>
> result: <div wicket:id="foo">bar</div>
>
> wich is right; however if i do:
> getMarkupSettings().setStripWicketTags(true);
>
> in the init he puts out:
>
> result: <div>bar</div>
>
> which is blowing up HTML-output for nothing - IMHO if the tags are empty
> after the wicket:id has been stripped they should be removed completely.
>
> Is this behavoir intention or a bug?
>
>
>
--
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org