<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br>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.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>Heck, while we are here, why don't we just do:<br><br>xmlns:f="jsf:core"<br>xmlns:h="jsf:html"<br>xmlns:ui="jsf:ui"<br><br>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?<br>
<br>-Dan <br></div></div><br>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>