[jsr-314-open] [JSF 2.1 NEW] composite component namespace simplification

[Roger Kitain]

"cc" is fine since it matches the EL expression (consistency).
I also think "jsf" is fine especially since "jsf" is used in the core 
(f) and html (h)
namespaces.

-roger

Jim Driscoll wrote:
>
>
> On 12/9/09 7:07 AM, Jason Lee wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>> Agreed, I don't think for the composite components we made the best
>>> choice for URI schema, IMO it should have been more like
>>>
>>> xmlns:pete="composite:components/pete"
>>>
>>> - the big difference to the original proposal is that we are still
>>> within the URI scheme guidelines because we use a scheme name. By
>>> defining our own scheme, we are then free to choose how the
>>> "hierarchical part" looks. Arguably we could go for a less generic
>>> scheme name like "faces" or "jsf":
>>>
>>> xmlns:pete="faces:composite:components/pete"
>>>
>>> which is a bit longer but more generic...
>>
>> I like this approach. Of the two, part of me thinks the second might be
>> the better choice, as it gives us a bit more flexibility to add things
>> under the faces scheme, thus kind of grouping things together, but
>> another part of me wonders if we'd ever want to do that, given the
>> context of the discussion (YAGNI ;). However, it's only 6 characters (or
>> 4 for "jsf:"), so I don't see the harm in the slightly longer proposal.
>
>
> I would prefer jsf:composite:jim for components under resources/jim, 
> and jsf:composite:comp/jim for components under resources/comp/jim.  
> Two characters might not seem like a lot, but why not use jsf instead 
> of faces if it signifies the same thing to users and is shorter?  (We 
> already use "jsf" in the Ajax library.)
>
> Further, in the interest of brevity, why say "composite"?  Why not 
> match the implicit EL object and just say "cc"?
>
> Thus:
>
> xmlns:jim="jsf:cc:jim"
>
> Isn't that just as clear to someone who already knows what #{cc} is?
>
> Concerned that it's too cryptic?  Look at the first part of that 
> phrase.  Anyone think that the XML standards guys should have called 
> it xmlnamespace instead of xmlns?
>
> Shorter is almost always better, especially for frequently typed 
> boilerplate.
>
> Jim