...Sylvain pointed out the case where a namespace needs to be associated to a particular block, but the more I think about this, the more I think this is wrong and shouldn't happen.
I have no problems if one 'certified' cocoon block uses a particular namespace that had to create because nobody else provides it, but this namespace should *NOT* be associated with that block anyhow...
Sounds reasonable - either namespaces are of general use and "registered" as such, or they are not associated with a particular block.
I would go as far as saying that is should *NOT* be allowed to have a namespace associated to a particular block or that contains the word "block" inside, unless is a namespace that about *blocks in general* (say the namespace of the block wiring markup, for example).
Yes, will help avoid confusion.
With this restriction, we can use one single scheme and have
http://apache.org/cocoon/ -> Cocoon URI prefix
http://apache.org/cocoon/block/ -> Cocoon Block-ID URI prefix
where "namespaces" have to belong to the cocoon URI prefix but *NOT* on the Cocoon Block-ID URI prefix.
Sounds good to me!
-Bertrand
