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

[Martin Marinschek]

Hi guys,

very useful discussion.

I like a) the most, and my +10 for the URN-version for the core taglibs as
well. Beautiful!

I think it actually has to be a), so that we are inline with our
specifications for the core taglibs, and that we don´t pollute the namespace
too much.

I´m sitting right here imaginating there comes the day were I don`t have to
tell developers to copy out the header "from some other file".

regards,

Martin

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:59 PM, David Geary <clarity.training at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/12/11, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> 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?
>
> Absolutely. I think this is a great idea!
>
>
> david
>
> >
> > -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
> >
>
>


-- 

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20091213/55cbc9af/attachment.html