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

Oops, I was getting my URLs and URNs mixed up. Thanks for the correction. I'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't think it would hurt as an alternative syntax. 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. Another option would be to allow users to alias one namespace to another so they can control how covenient it is. Just brainstorming. - Dan Allen Sent from my Android-powered phone: An open platform for carriers, consumers and developers. On Dec 8, 2009 7:06 AM, "Pete Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: I would argue against this, on the basis of learnability. Anyone who has used XML schema immediately understands the current scheme and can transfer their domain knowledge about XML across. David's proposed syntax is a complete deviation from the standard. Dan's is a bit better, as it is a valid URI [1], but it still isn't a URN [2]. To make it a valid URN (which arguably this should have been in the first place ;-), it could be: urn:faces:components:util But is that really more readable? Perhaps my brain is just addled by URLs ;-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme#Generic_syntax [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name#URN_Syntax On 7 Dec 2009, at 22:07, Dan Allen wrote: > I like the idea, but I'm wondering if we can still ret...