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

[Jim Driscoll]

On 12/11/09 9:09 AM, Dan Allen wrote:
>
> 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).

I prefer (a), if we expect that there will be other URNs that we define. 
  Do we expect that to happen?

If not, then I have a question about URNs: will the user be able to be 
define others? (Sorry, my XML knowledge is woefully inadequate).  If the 
user can define new ones, then I'd again prefer a), otherwise, b).  I'd 
prefer to have either (a) or (b), since it matches existing 
abbreviations - jsf, and cc.  Having a new one, jsfcc, adds to the 
semantic load of learning the API, which, I think, outweighs the 
advantage of losing the extra character.

Jim