>>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:35:22 -0500, Kito Mann <kito.mann(a)virtua.com&gt; said: KM> I like this idea... For a long time I've thought it was silly to use a KM> full-blown URL when it isn't necessary; I've been using URNs for my own KM> namespaces for a while. KM> At any rate, the main issue here is consistency with the rest of Java EE -- KM> we should be careful here. >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:04:17 -0600, Jason Lee <jason(a)steeplesoft.com&gt; said: JL> On 12/11/09 12:49 PM, Dan Allen wrote: >> My second choice is (a), so if I lose on (c), I'll be happy with (a) >> too. I think that (b) is just too vague. JL> My preference is a, c, then b. a) jsf:cc:whatevername b) cc:whatevername c) jsfcc:whatevername This issue has been discussed thoroughly and the consensus rests on (a). I also favor (a). I have filed [1]. I'm marking it conditionally closed here pending the result of a "heads up" email to get feedback from the rest of JavaEE. Finally, we can't make this change in the very next release of the spec because the very next release will only contain very simple spec changes. However, there's nothing stoping implementors from doing it. Ed [1] https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=695

Thanks, Ed. I was going to file this later today, but you beat me to it!