[jsr-314-open] [OT] faces-config.xml names

[Andy Schwartz]

Gang -

The spec defines the name element as:

>             <xsd:element name="name"
>                          type="javaee:java-identifierType"
>                          minOccurs="0"
>                          maxOccurs="1">

javaee:java-identifierType is:

> <xsd:complexType name="java-identifierType">
>     <xsd:annotation>
>       <xsd:documentation>
>
>     The java-identifierType defines a Java identifier.
>     The users of this type should further verify that
>     the content does not contain Java reserved keywords.
>
>       </xsd:documentation>
>     </xsd:annotation>
>     <xsd:simpleContent>
>       <xsd:restriction base="j2ee:string">
>     <xsd:pattern value="($|_|\p{L})(\p{L}|\p{Nd}|_|$)*"/>
>       </xsd:restriction>
>     </xsd:simpleContent>
>   </xsd:complexType>


My regular expression parsing skills are not what they should be, but I 
believe that this is unintentionally overly strict.  The desired 
semantics are to match the XML NMTOKEN type:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-2e-20000814.html#NT-Nmtoken

Which allows '.' (and other characters too, like '-', ':').

This is going to require a loosening of the spec - in particular, in the 
XSD for faces-config.xml.  Can we find some way to address this?  
Perhaps as a spec errata that allows implementations to accept qualified 
ids?

Andy

lincolnbaxter at gmail.com wrote:
> Agreed. I don't know if that's something we can fix? Should be fixed 
> IMO. Though I don't understand the reasons it wasn't included at all, 
> so I can't really theorize.
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:20:53 -0400
> *To: *<lincolnbaxter at gmail.com>; <jsr-314-open at jcp.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [jsr-314-open] [OT] faces-config.xml names
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM, <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com 
> <mailto:lincolnbaxter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Andy,
>
>     Prettyfaces uses ocpsoft_pretty_faces (dot is not an allowed
>     character and will cause deploy failure)
>
>
> Too bad. I would have voted for the Java namespace style. I like 
> org.apache.myfaces.trinidad and org.ocpsoft.prettyfaces
>
> Either way, I would use a name that maps closely to the root package 
> of the component library.
>
> -Dan
>
>
> -- 
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> Registered Linux User #231597
>
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen