On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Dan Allen
<dan.j.allen@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.