Re: [jsr-314-open] [JSF 2.1 NEW] composite component namespace simplification
On 12/11/09 9:09 AM, Dan Allen wrote:
Just to throw in another option, we could do jsfcc. That way, we qualify
but still cut another character.
Perhaps we need a vote.
a) jsf:cc:whatevername
b) cc:whatevername
c) jsfcc:whatevername
I vote for (c).
I prefer (a), if we expect that there will be other URNs that we define.
Do we expect that to happen?
If not, then I have a question about URNs: will the user be able to be
define others? (Sorry, my XML knowledge is woefully inadequate). If the
user can define new ones, then I'd again prefer a), otherwise, b). I'd
prefer to have either (a) or (b), since it matches existing
abbreviations - jsf, and cc. Having a new one, jsfcc, adds to the
semantic load of learning the API, which, I think, outweighs the
advantage of losing the extra character.
Jim