You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com> on 2010/09/16 03:11:06 UTC
Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Hi,
I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding
what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the clients
I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types
are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned
I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects.
What I'll call "the Wicket XHTML DTD" is referenced as the XML namespace
URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated
DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only,
even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD.
Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be
valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD.
It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket
XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.:
This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers:
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"
but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema:
the addition of some "wicket:" prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;.
It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header
comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified
the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to
the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be
inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes
occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and
will not validate according to that DTD.
There are a few questions/comments that come from the above:
1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing?
Would removing them break existing functionality?
2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a
simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes?
3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT
stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based
on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply
the code supporting that feature.
4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to
supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then
"flattened" (converted into one file) based on some tools I've written.
This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and
be appropriately named, e.g.,
-//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN
This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web
pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were
stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce
valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible.
Some clarification on this would be most appreciated,
Thanks,
Ichiro
PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to
Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what
should not be rocket science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Posted by Jeremy Thomerson <je...@wickettraining.com>.
Yes
Jeremy Thomerson
http://wickettraining.com
-- sent from my "smart" phone, so please excuse spelling, formatting, or
compiler errors
On Sep 15, 2010 8:51 PM, "Ichiro Furusato" <ic...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id
in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so,
I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what
else I've seen in Wicket).
Cheers,
Ichiro
On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson <je...@wickettraining.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM,...
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Posted by Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>.
And even on development you could disable it via overriding the
Application.init() and calling
getMarkupSettings().setStripWicketTags(true);
Ernesto
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Ichiro Furusato
<ic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id
> in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so,
> I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what
> else I've seen in Wicket).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ichiro
>
>
> On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson <je...@wickettraining.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato
>> <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding
>>> what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the
>>> clients
>>> I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types
>>> are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned
>>> I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects.
>>>
>>> What I'll call "the Wicket XHTML DTD" is referenced as the XML namespace
>>> URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated
>>> DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only,
>>> even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD.
>>> Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be
>>> valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD.
>>>
>>> It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket
>>> XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.:
>>>
>>> This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers:
>>>
>>> PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>>> SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"
>>>
>>> but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema:
>>> the addition of some "wicket:" prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;.
>>>
>>> It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header
>>> comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified
>>> the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to
>>> the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be
>>> inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes
>>> occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and
>>> will not validate according to that DTD.
>>>
>>> There are a few questions/comments that come from the above:
>>>
>>> 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing?
>>> Would removing them break existing functionality?
>>>
>>> 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a
>>> simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes?
>>>
>>> 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT
>>> stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based
>>> on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply
>>> the code supporting that feature.
>>>
>>> 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to
>>> supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then
>>> "flattened" (converted into one file) based on some tools I've
>>> written.
>>> This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and
>>> be appropriately named, e.g.,
>>>
>>> -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN
>>>
>>> This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web
>>> pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were
>>> stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce
>>> valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible.
>>>
>>> Some clarification on this would be most appreciated,
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ichiro
>>>
>>> PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to
>>> Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what
>>> should not be rocket science.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only
>> wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is "wicket:id",
>> which will automatically be removed from your HTML in deployment mode. So,
>> use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict XHTML is what will be
>> rendered.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Thomerson
>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Posted by Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Emond, that looks very helpful. I'm a bit overwhelmed at
this point, having started learning Wicket on Wednesday and by
now almost having a bare bones application. Nice little surprises
along the way...
On 9/17/10, Emond Papegaaij <em...@topicus.nl> wrote:
> Hi Ichiro,
>
> If you want to enforce valid XHTML, take a look at the WicketStuff HTML
> Validator: http://github.com/dashorst/wicket-stuff-markup-validator
>
> It automatically validates all pages served by the application and shows an
> error report for invalid markup.
>
> Best regards,
> Emond Papegaaij
>
> On Thursday 16 September 2010 03:50:35 Ichiro Furusato wrote:
>> Hi Jeremy,
>>
>> Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id
>> in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so,
>> I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what
>> else I've seen in Wicket).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ichiro
>>
>> On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson <je...@wickettraining.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato
>> >
>> > <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding
>> >> what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the
>> >> clients
>> >> I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types
>> >> are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm
>> >> concerned I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects.
>> >>
>> >> What I'll call "the Wicket XHTML DTD" is referenced as the XML
>> >> namespace
>> >> URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated
>> >> DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML
>> >> only,
>> >> even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML
>> >> DTD. Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare
>> >> and be valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD.
>> >>
>> >> It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the
>> >> Wicket
>> >>
>> >> XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict,
>> >> e.g.:
>> >> This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers:
>> >> PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>> >> SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"
>> >>
>> >> but on further investigation there have been modifications to the
>> >> schema: the addition of some "wicket:" prefixed attributes to
>> >> %coreattrs;.
>> >>
>> >> It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header
>> >> comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is
>> >> modified the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any
>> >> reference to the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would
>> >> likewise be inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even
>> >> if the changes occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer
>> >> XHTML 1.0 Strict and will not validate according to that DTD.
>> >>
>> >> There are a few questions/comments that come from the above:
>> >> 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing?
>> >>
>> >> Would removing them break existing functionality?
>> >>
>> >> 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a
>> >>
>> >> simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes?
>> >>
>> >> 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT
>> >>
>> >> stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based
>> >> on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply
>> >> the code supporting that feature.
>> >>
>> >> 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to
>> >>
>> >> supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then
>> >> "flattened" (converted into one file) based on some tools I've
>> >>
>> >> written.
>> >>
>> >> This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and
>> >> be appropriately named, e.g.,
>> >>
>> >> -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN
>> >>
>> >> This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web
>> >> pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were
>> >> stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce
>> >> valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible.
>> >>
>> >> Some clarification on this would be most appreciated,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Ichiro
>> >>
>> >> PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to
>> >> Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what
>> >> should not be rocket science.
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>> >
>> > Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only
>> > wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is
>> > "wicket:id", which will automatically be removed from your HTML in
>> > deployment mode. So, use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict
>> > XHTML is what will be rendered.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeremy Thomerson
>> > http://www.wickettraining.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Posted by Emond Papegaaij <em...@topicus.nl>.
Hi Ichiro,
If you want to enforce valid XHTML, take a look at the WicketStuff HTML
Validator: http://github.com/dashorst/wicket-stuff-markup-validator
It automatically validates all pages served by the application and shows an
error report for invalid markup.
Best regards,
Emond Papegaaij
On Thursday 16 September 2010 03:50:35 Ichiro Furusato wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id
> in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so,
> I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what
> else I've seen in Wicket).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ichiro
>
> On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson <je...@wickettraining.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato
> >
> > <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding
> >> what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the
> >> clients
> >> I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types
> >> are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm
> >> concerned I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects.
> >>
> >> What I'll call "the Wicket XHTML DTD" is referenced as the XML namespace
> >> URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated
> >> DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only,
> >> even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML
> >> DTD. Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare
> >> and be valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD.
> >>
> >> It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the
> >> Wicket
> >>
> >> XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.:
> >> This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers:
> >> PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> >> SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"
> >>
> >> but on further investigation there have been modifications to the
> >> schema: the addition of some "wicket:" prefixed attributes to
> >> %coreattrs;.
> >>
> >> It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header
> >> comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is
> >> modified the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any
> >> reference to the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would
> >> likewise be inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even
> >> if the changes occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer
> >> XHTML 1.0 Strict and will not validate according to that DTD.
> >>
> >> There are a few questions/comments that come from the above:
> >> 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing?
> >>
> >> Would removing them break existing functionality?
> >>
> >> 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a
> >>
> >> simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes?
> >>
> >> 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT
> >>
> >> stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based
> >> on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply
> >> the code supporting that feature.
> >>
> >> 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to
> >>
> >> supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then
> >> "flattened" (converted into one file) based on some tools I've
> >>
> >> written.
> >>
> >> This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and
> >> be appropriately named, e.g.,
> >>
> >> -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN
> >>
> >> This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web
> >> pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were
> >> stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce
> >> valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible.
> >>
> >> Some clarification on this would be most appreciated,
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Ichiro
> >>
> >> PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to
> >> Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what
> >> should not be rocket science.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> >
> > Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only
> > wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is
> > "wicket:id", which will automatically be removed from your HTML in
> > deployment mode. So, use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict
> > XHTML is what will be rendered.
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy Thomerson
> > http://www.wickettraining.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Posted by Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for the quick reply. Is the reason I'm seeing the wicket:id
in my output then that I'm working in development mode? If so,
I'd say that was a nice design decision (not surprising from what
else I've seen in Wicket).
Cheers,
Ichiro
On 9/16/10, Jeremy Thomerson <je...@wickettraining.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato
> <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding
>> what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the
>> clients
>> I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types
>> are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned
>> I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects.
>>
>> What I'll call "the Wicket XHTML DTD" is referenced as the XML namespace
>> URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated
>> DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only,
>> even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD.
>> Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be
>> valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD.
>>
>> It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket
>> XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.:
>>
>> This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers:
>>
>> PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>> SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"
>>
>> but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema:
>> the addition of some "wicket:" prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;.
>>
>> It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header
>> comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified
>> the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to
>> the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be
>> inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes
>> occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and
>> will not validate according to that DTD.
>>
>> There are a few questions/comments that come from the above:
>>
>> 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing?
>> Would removing them break existing functionality?
>>
>> 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a
>> simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes?
>>
>> 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT
>> stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based
>> on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply
>> the code supporting that feature.
>>
>> 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to
>> supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then
>> "flattened" (converted into one file) based on some tools I've
>> written.
>> This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and
>> be appropriately named, e.g.,
>>
>> -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN
>>
>> This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web
>> pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were
>> stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce
>> valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible.
>>
>> Some clarification on this would be most appreciated,
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ichiro
>>
>> PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to
>> Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what
>> should not be rocket science.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
>>
> Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only
> wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is "wicket:id",
> which will automatically be removed from your HTML in deployment mode. So,
> use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict XHTML is what will be
> rendered.
>
> --
> Jeremy Thomerson
> http://www.wickettraining.com
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket pages are invalid XHTML
Posted by Jeremy Thomerson <je...@wickettraining.com>.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ichiro Furusato
<ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a new Wicket user and am unclear about a couple of things regarding
> what type of markup Wicket delivers to clients. Because some of the clients
> I work with have government guidelines restricting what document types
> are permitted (typically XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional), I'm concerned
> I might not be able to use Wicket for those projects.
>
> What I'll call "the Wicket XHTML DTD" is referenced as the XML namespace
> URI for wicket documents. As (from what I've seen) there is no stated
> DOCTYPE declaration, Wicket pages are expressed as well-formed XML only,
> even though they could likely validate according to the Wicket XHTML DTD.
> Unfortunately, for my applications I have a requirement to declare and be
> valid according to a W3C XHTML 1.0 DTD.
>
> It would seem from the unmodified comments found at the top of the Wicket
> XHTML DTD that the schema used at first glance is XHTML 1.0 Strict, e.g.:
>
> This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers:
>
> PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"
>
> but on further investigation there have been modifications to the schema:
> the addition of some "wicket:" prefixed attributes to %coreattrs;.
>
> It's not industry practice to do that kind of thing, i.e., the header
> comments should identify the schema being expressed. If a DTD is modified
> the comments should be modified to relabel the schema. Any reference to
> the FPI (formal public identifier) for XHTML 1.0 would likewise be
> inappropriate since the Wicket schema has modified it. Even if the changes
> occur in a new XML namespace the schema is no longer XHTML 1.0 Strict and
> will not validate according to that DTD.
>
> There are a few questions/comments that come from the above:
>
> 1. Are the wicket attributes required for Wicket-based processing?
> Would removing them break existing functionality?
>
> 2. If the answer to #1 is no, could the web pages be run through a
> simple XSLT transform to remove the non-XHTML attributes?
>
> 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, I'm willing to supply the XSLT
> stylesheet, but I'm not on the developer team and couldn't based
> on my current workload volunteer, so I wouldn't be able to supply
> the code supporting that feature.
>
> 4. I am familiar with the XHTML modular DTDs and would be willing to
> supply an XHTML 1.0 DTD based on a new Wicket module, then
> "flattened" (converted into one file) based on some tools I've
> written.
> This would be a replacement for the existing Wicket XHTML DTD and
> be appropriately named, e.g.,
>
> -//Apache.org//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict for Wicket 1.4//EN
>
> This DTD could of course be used to validate Wicket-produced web
> pages, but wouldn't be needed if the wicket: attributes were
> stripped from generated web pages. Ideally, Wicket would produce
> valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. I don't know if this is possible.
>
> Some clarification on this would be most appreciated,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ichiro
>
> PS. on the whole I'm liking what I see with Wicket, esp. compared to
> Spring's increasingly complex, arcane and fragile approach to what
> should not be rocket science.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
Wicket only generates whatever HTML you want it to generate. The only
wicket tag (or actually, attribute) you are required to use is "wicket:id",
which will automatically be removed from your HTML in deployment mode. So,
use strict XHTML in your *.html files and strict XHTML is what will be
rendered.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com