On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:56, Berin Loritsch wrote: > Fortress uses some tags in a non-standard way, and it adds one that is > not in existence. Peter objects to poluting the Avalon namespace--I > agree on differing contracts for @avalon.component and @avalon.service;
Can you describe what you mean by @avalon.service? > however, we have a disagreement on @avalon.lifestyle. > > I like Peter Royal's suggestion, so I propose the following: > > 1) Fortress gets in line with @avalon.component and @avalon.service > 2) We introduce an @avalon-ext namespace for extensions we are wanting > to experiment with that are not supposed to be container specific. > In this case the first addition is the @avalon-ext.lifecycle. I would use x- prefix to get inline with other standards bodies. Especially given that Merlin uses extensions to refer to something else. > I think this is the best compromise, and it will allow us to have > an "incubation" period for new tags. And how does something get out of the x- namespace? And where do you expect it to go when it does get out of it? -- Cheers, Peter Donald --------------------------------------------------- "It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities." -Josiah Stamp --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
