David M. Lloyd wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 08:32:16 -0700
> Ryan Lubke <Ryan.Lubke_at_Sun.COM> wrote (quoting Craig):
>
>
>> [...]
>> The spec language doesn't say anything, but the JSF 1.1 DTD comment
>> regarding <managed-bean-name> includes the comment 'It must be of
>> type "Identifier"', which references back to a "type description"
>> above claiming that the content must conform to the syntax of a valid
>> Java identifier. I suspect that, when this DTD was translated into a
>> schema, this requirement was taken literally.
>>
>> That creates an interesting backwards compatibility problem for
>> Shale, but also an interesting spec question regarding backwards
>> compatibility ... the RI for 1.2 is enforcing a requirement that the
>> RI for 1.1 did not enforce, which could be argued is a breakage.
>> But, in the mean time, I'm going to look at what the impact would be
>> of correcting these names in Shale.
>>
>
>
>> We haven't released these changes yet, so this has no immediate
>> impact, but it would be good to get a discussion going on this and
>> figure out what should be done.
>>
>> For those of you on the EG, what do you think? Should the 1.2 schema
>> be relaxed?
>>
>
> Not personally on the EG, but relaxing the schema has my vote, 110%.
> No downside that I can see, and that behavior is, well, kind of
> obnoxious. :-)
>
EG or not, all feedback is welcome. The ultimate decision of course is
with them.
> - DML
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_javaserverfaces.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_javaserverfaces.dev.java.net
>
>