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

[Kito Mann]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>> Sure. Any custom component library could standardize on a URN rather than
>> a full-blown URI. Whether it be us in the future or just a convention by
>> users.
>>
>
> Heck, while we are here, why don't we just do:
>
> xmlns:f="jsf:core"
> xmlns:h="jsf:html"
> xmlns:ui="jsf:ui"
>
> I'm trying to think if there are problems with doing that, but we can
> associate the schema with these shorter names. The real benefit of using a
> full-blown URI is that you can avoid conflicts w/ other namespace providers.
> But since we are JSF (there can be only one JSF, evil laugh) then why not?
>

I like this idea... For a long time I've thought it was silly to use a
full-blown URL when it isn't necessary; I've been using URNs for my own
namespaces for a while.

At any rate, the main issue here is consistency with the rest of Java EE --
we should be careful here.

>
> -Dan
>
> --
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> Registered Linux User #231597
>
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20091211/27a54a9f/attachment.html