Thanks, Ed. I was going to file this later today, but you beat me to it!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/12/11 Ed Burns <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Ed.Burns@sun.com">Ed.Burns@sun.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:35:22 -0500, Kito Mann <<a href="mailto:kito.mann@virtua.com">kito.mann@virtua.com</a>> said:<br>
<br>
KM> I like this idea... For a long time I've thought it was silly to use a<br>
KM> full-blown URL when it isn't necessary; I've been using URNs for my own<br>
KM> namespaces for a while.<br>
<br>
KM> At any rate, the main issue here is consistency with the rest of Java EE --<br>
KM> we should be careful here.<br>
<br>
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:04:17 -0600, Jason Lee <<a href="mailto:jason@steeplesoft.com">jason@steeplesoft.com</a>> said:<br>
<br>
JL> On 12/11/09 12:49 PM, Dan Allen wrote:<br>
>> My second choice is (a), so if I lose on (c), I'll be happy with (a)<br>
>> too. I think that (b) is just too vague.<br>
JL> My preference is a, c, then b.<br>
<br>
a) jsf:cc:whatevername<br>
b) cc:whatevername<br>
c) jsfcc:whatevername<br>
<br>
This issue has been discussed thoroughly and the consensus rests on (a).<br>
I also favor (a). I have filed [1].<br>
<br>
I'm marking it conditionally closed here pending the result of a "heads<br>
up" email to get feedback from the rest of JavaEE.<br>
<br>
Finally, we can't make this change in the very next release of the spec<br>
because the very next release will only contain very simple spec<br>
changes. However, there's nothing stoping implementors from doing it<br>
<br>
Ed<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=695" target="_blank">https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=695</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>