Re: [jsr-314-open] [JSF 2.1 NEW] composite component namespace simplification
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Heck, while we are here, why don't we just do:
xmlns:f="jsf:core"
xmlns:h="jsf:html"
xmlns:ui="jsf:ui"
I'm trying to think if there are problems with doing that, but we can
associate the schema with these shorter names. The real benefit of using a
full-blown URI is that you can avoid conflicts w/ other namespace providers.
But since we are JSF (there can be only one JSF, evil laugh) then why not?
I like this idea... For a long time I've thought it was silly to use a
full-blown URL when it isn't necessary; I've been using URNs for my own
namespaces for a while.
At any rate, the main issue here is consistency with the rest of Java EE --
we should be careful here.
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 2.2 KB)