You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> on 2006/06/02 02:53:58 UTC
Re: [jira] Created: (FOR-892) Dispatcher output does not validate
xhtml: duplicate ID "tabs", etc.
El jue, 01-06-2006 a las 19:24 -0500, Brian M Dube escribió:
> David Crossley (JIRA) wrote:
> > Dispatcher output does not validate xhtml: duplicate ID "tabs", etc.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Key: FOR-892
> > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-892
> > Project: Forrest
> > Type: Bug
> >
> > Components: Dispatcher (aka views)
> > Versions: 0.8-dev
> > Reporter: David Crossley
> >
> >
> > Doing http://validator.w3.org/ for Dispatcher fails for 'forrest seed', i.e.
> > http://forrest.zones.apache.org/ft/build/forrest-sample-2/
> >
> > The main error is: ID "tabs" already defined.
>
> Why not use hooks in the structurer rather than implicit div tags in the
> contract? Both nav-main and nav-main-sub contracts in the common theme
> use implicit div tags. Hooks alone wouldn't solve the duplicate id
> problem, but is there a reason not to use hooks in this case?
You are totally right Brian.
There is no good reason to have it in the contracts.
Can you provide a patch for the contracts and the themes?
salu2
> Brian
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [jira] Created: (FOR-892) Dispatcher output does not validate
xhtml: duplicate ID "tabs", etc.
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El jue, 01-06-2006 a las 20:08 -0500, Brian M Dube escribió:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > El jue, 01-06-2006 a las 19:24 -0500, Brian M Dube escribió:
> >> David Crossley (JIRA) wrote:
> >>> Dispatcher output does not validate xhtml: duplicate ID "tabs", etc.
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Key: FOR-892
> >>> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-892
> >>> Project: Forrest
> >>> Type: Bug
> >>>
> >>> Components: Dispatcher (aka views)
> >>> Versions: 0.8-dev
> >>> Reporter: David Crossley
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Doing http://validator.w3.org/ for Dispatcher fails for 'forrest seed', i.e.
> >>> http://forrest.zones.apache.org/ft/build/forrest-sample-2/
> >>>
> >>> The main error is: ID "tabs" already defined.
> >> Why not use hooks in the structurer rather than implicit div tags in the
> >> contract? Both nav-main and nav-main-sub contracts in the common theme
> >> use implicit div tags. Hooks alone wouldn't solve the duplicate id
> >> problem, but is there a reason not to use hooks in this case?
> >
> > You are totally right Brian.
> >
> > There is no good reason to have it in the contracts.
> >
> > Can you provide a patch for the contracts and the themes?
>
> Yes, with your answer I can proceed. Thanks.
:)
Thank you for the patches.
Will commit them ASAP when nobody beats me to it.
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [jira] Created: (FOR-892) Dispatcher output does not validate
xhtml: duplicate ID "tabs", etc.
Posted by Brian M Dube <br...@gmail.com>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> El jue, 01-06-2006 a las 19:24 -0500, Brian M Dube escribió:
>> David Crossley (JIRA) wrote:
>>> Dispatcher output does not validate xhtml: duplicate ID "tabs", etc.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Key: FOR-892
>>> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-892
>>> Project: Forrest
>>> Type: Bug
>>>
>>> Components: Dispatcher (aka views)
>>> Versions: 0.8-dev
>>> Reporter: David Crossley
>>>
>>>
>>> Doing http://validator.w3.org/ for Dispatcher fails for 'forrest seed', i.e.
>>> http://forrest.zones.apache.org/ft/build/forrest-sample-2/
>>>
>>> The main error is: ID "tabs" already defined.
>> Why not use hooks in the structurer rather than implicit div tags in the
>> contract? Both nav-main and nav-main-sub contracts in the common theme
>> use implicit div tags. Hooks alone wouldn't solve the duplicate id
>> problem, but is there a reason not to use hooks in this case?
>
> You are totally right Brian.
>
> There is no good reason to have it in the contracts.
>
> Can you provide a patch for the contracts and the themes?
Yes, with your answer I can proceed. Thanks.
Brian