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

[Dan Allen]

>
> 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?

-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/a0250002/attachment.html