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

"cc" is fine since it matches the EL expression (consistency). I also think "jsf" is fine especially since "jsf" is used in the core (f) and html (h) namespaces. -roger Jim Driscoll wrote: > > > On 12/9/09 7:07 AM, Jason Lee wrote: > >> On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Pete Muir wrote: >> >>> Agreed, I don't think for the composite components we made the best >>> choice for URI schema, IMO it should have been more like >>> >>> xmlns:pete="composite:components/pete" >>> >>> - the big difference to the original proposal is that we are still >>> within the URI scheme guidelines because we use a scheme name. By >>> defining our own scheme, we are then free to choose how the >>> "hierarchical part" looks. Arguably we could go for a less generic >>> scheme name like "faces" or "jsf": >>> >>> xmlns:pete="faces:composite:components/pete" >>> >>> which is a bit longer but more generic... >>> >> >> I like this approach. Of the two, part of me thinks the second might be >> the better choice, as it gives us a bit more flexibility to add things >> under the faces scheme, thus kind of grouping things together, but >> another part of me wonders if we'd ever want to do that, given the >> context of the discussion (YAGNI ;). However, it's only 6 characters (or >> 4 for "jsf:"), so I don't see the harm in the slightly longer proposal. >> > > > I would prefer jsf:composite:jim for components under resources/jim, and > jsf:composite:comp/jim for components under resources/comp/jim. Two > characters might not seem like a lot, but why not use jsf instead of faces > if it signifies the same thing to users and is shorter? (We already use > "jsf" in the Ajax library.) > > Further, in the interest of brevity, why say "composite"? Why not match > the implicit EL object and just say "cc"? > > Thus: > > xmlns:jim="jsf:cc:jim" > > Isn't that just as clear to someone who already knows what #{cc} is? > > Concerned that it's too cryptic? Look at the first part of that phrase. > Anyone think that the XML standards guys should have called it xmlnamespace > instead of xmlns? > > Shorter is almost always better, especially for frequently typed > boilerplate. > > Jim >