Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 21 May 2003, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I've seen that Costin and Conor prefer that antlibs specify their >> URI themselves. Could anybody please explain why > > OK, let me try to summarize your answers: > > Peter says - letting the user chose the URI may create problems if we > want to add implicit meaning to URIs in the future. I think the same > problem will arise if we let antlib writers chose the URI so we need > to solve it differently. We could reserve all schema names starting > with ant for internal use and prohibit anybody from using it, for > example.
To be consistent :-), I think we should let antlib writers pick arbitrary URIs either, at least in the first release. My proposal is to use the base package name of the implementation. Antlib authors can choose any package name they want - we should only require that the antlib URI matches the package. ( it's just one sugestion - I can live with any alternative, including UUIDs if that's what other people want :-) > Conor and Costin - that's how you normally do it in the XML namespace > context. Well, true. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a good > idea 8-) There are quite a few bad ideas in XML ( schema is probably the winner in this category ). However requiring the namespace ( and the DTD ) URI to be stable is not a bad idea IMO. Costin > Conor and Costin - if you read the build file and URIs are fixed > you'll know which antlib is used. Well, that makes sense to me, > thanks, the piece I was missing. > > Stefan
