On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Jim Driscoll
<Jim.Driscoll@sun.com> wrote:
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).
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.
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.
My second choice is (a), so if I lose on (c), I'll be happy with (a) too. I think that (b) is just too vague.
-Dan