Re: [jsr-314-open] [JSF 2.1 NEW] composite component namespace simplification
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(a)gmail.com>wrote:
2009/12/11, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)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
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 2.6 KB)