Marc Portier wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
+1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
I'm +1 for "forms" only - as Vadim pointed out, it's "Cocoon" is obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
WDOT?
Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand, and Rolf) had a little chat on IRC and agreed on the following:
Block Title: Cocoon Forms, or Cocoon Forms 1.0 Block Name: cforms Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms Namespace: http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0
sorry for missing the argumentation on keeping the 'forms' here, or is this a typo?
and similar for binding and templating I presume? we might question if reordering the sub-domain and version-no is not more natural then:NS Prefix: fd
xmlns:fd=http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0/definition xmlns:fb=http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0/binding
I like it, but I'm no specialist on those things.
I think we should keep the version number at the end. What if, in the lifetime of Cocoon forms 1.0 (the general design of it), a new binding approach emerges that leads us to use another namespace?
Will it be http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0/binding/1.1? Looks ugly ;-)
It should be http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/binding/1.1, that will work with http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0.
I'm still undecided however about the use of "forms" or "cforms" in the namespace (had no time for IRC today - sorry). Won't it be strange to have ".../forms/.../1.0" use classes in the "cforms" package and ".../forms/.../2.0" use classes in the "zforms" package? Don't know. "forms" may be good after all to enforce that there can be only one official form framework at a given time.
BTW, good to see you back, Marc!
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
