On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM, David Geary
<clarity.training@gmail.com> wrote:
Yup, understood, thanks for the clarification, Dan.
btw, it seems to me that we really don't need the jsf prefix either. After all, it's only used in JSF applications, so I'd just prefer something like cc:acme, which of course, ala Dan's clarification really means cc:whatever
I suppose one could argue that we should have it because we have it in our other namespaces, but we're not using java.sun.com, which we also have in the other namespaces, so why not just simplify as much as possible and say cc:whatever?
Just to throw in another option, we could do jsfcc. That way, we qualify but still cut another character.
Perhaps we need a vote.
a) jsf:cc:whatevername
b) cc:whatevername
c) jsfcc:whatevername
I vote for (c).
One other point to think about. The reason we are sticking with a valid XML namespace syntax is because, if you recall, the goal in the future is to recognize the view template as a pure XML document that can leverage all of the great XML tooling that is already out there w/o any special plugins. We can have an XSD generated automatically (or hand written) and then you get tag completion on your new, shiny composite components. If we abandon XML rules, we jeopordize that vision. (proposal for all that is pending...somewhere in my 1000 things to do)
-Dan