Re: [jsr-314-open] [JSF 2.1 NEW] composite component namespace simplification

I like Jim's suggestion here. I agree with the jsf scheme since the current taglib namespaces use "jsf" not "faces" (e.g., http://java.sun.com/jsf/core). So the standard seems to be to use "jsf" in URNs. I like the "cc" scheme because we have already started down that round, so it is actually more consistent and meaningful than "composite", which really doesn't mean anything. So citing Pete's example with the new syntax: xmlns:pete="jsf:cc:components/pete" would map to /resources/components/pete Am I right? Of course, this ties into our other request to tuck these things away under WEB-INF /WEB-INF/resources/components/pete Also, going back to something David said earlier about how flex maps to a whole directory with /*, the composite components already map to a whole directory. We don't have the concept of creating a namespace for a single component, which really doesn't make any sense anyone. The point I'm getting at is that we really are pretty close to getting something that is quite elegant. -Dan On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III < lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- 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