2009/12/8 Pete Muir <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:pmuir@redhat.com">pmuir@redhat.com</a>&gt;</span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On 8 Dec 2009, at 15:10, Dan Allen wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; Oops, I was getting my URLs and URNs mixed up. Thanks for the correction.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I&#39;m torn. The fewer characters do make it easier for my brain to remember and also gives an indication that the namespace is somehow different. I don&#39;t think it would hurt as an alternative syntax.</div></blockquote>
<div><br>Actually, when I originally proposed this, I was thinking that it could be an alternative syntax.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"> Those who prefer URLs can just stick with them. Depends on whether we want to introduce this variance, and thus one more thing to explain.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Another option would be to allow users to alias one namespace to another so they can control how covenient it is. Just brainstorming.<br>
<br>
</div>Yeah, this seems like a better option to me :-)<br></blockquote><div><br>But, if I understand correctly, now we have an extra step: aliasing the namespace so it&#39;s easier to remember. Then JSF developers have yet another thing to learn: how to alias the namespace.<br>
 <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
I would like to know *why* this being proposed as well.</blockquote></div><br>I proposed it because when I was teaching JSF 2.0 someone asked me why they had to type all that stuff before the component directory. I didn&#39;t have a good answer. I still don&#39;t, actually. I never really have understood why XML namespaces are specified as URLs.<br>
<br>Fundamentally, JSF developers are drowning in complexity. We should be doing everything we can to simplify instead of obfuscate. Why should page authors have to remember to put <a href="http://java.sun.com/jsf/composite/components/util" target="_blank">http://java.sun.com/jsf/composite</a> before the directory name, when the directory name is the only significant part of the namespace?<br>
<br>And then there&#39;s precedent: With Flex, you pull all Flex components in a directory, say components/util, by doing exactly what I proposed, although with Flex, you can specify and individual component, like this...<br>
<br>xmlns=&quot;components/util/coolDateComponent&quot;<br><br>or all of the components in the util directory:<br><br>xmlns=&quot;components/util/*&quot;<br><br>If it&#39;s good enough for Flex, I don&#39;t see why it&#39;s not good enough for us. Flex, btw, is pretty popular, and is doing very well in the marketplace, and one of the main reasons is that it&#39;s conceptually simple.<br>
<br>Most JSF page authors have no idea what the difference is between a URN or a URL. And they have no idea why the have to specify such a long, ugly, and difficult to remember prefix to the directory when all they want to do is specify the directory.<br>
<br><br>david<br><br>