On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:59 PM, David Geary
<clarity.training@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/12/11, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen@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