One other point to think about. The reason we are sticking with a
valid XML
> namespace syntax is because, if you recall, the goal in the future is to
> recognize the view template as a pure XML document that can leverage all of
> the great XML tooling that is already out there w/o any special plugins. We
> can have an XSD generated automatically (or hand written) and then you get
> tag completion on your new, shiny composite components. If we abandon XML
> rules, we jeopordize that vision. (proposal for all that is
> pending...somewhere in my 1000 things to do)
>
Thanks for that clarification, Dan. I hate to admit it, but I didn't
realize that all along. :)
Sure thing. And when you see how awesome it is going to be to have pure XML,
you'll be jumping for joy, I'm sure of it ;) That proposal got bumped up in
my list ;)
-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