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

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.