Looking through the code base one can see that we now have XML namespaces where needed, which is good. However, it turns out that we have not been too consistent with regards to how we create these namespaces. Some of them are prefixed with http://, others aren't.
Therefore, the first part of the proposal is to unify the two approaches and I hope to get a +1 from everyone on this. The second part is to agree on the namespace naming scheme we use. On the table is the choice between going with a prefix of http:// vs. going without it. Technically speaking, the namespace should be a URI, which both URN (name) and URL (location) comply with and there is no requirement on the prefix, so engage.opencastproject.org is as good as http://engage.opencastproject.org with the slight difference that using the http:// somehow implies being able to visit that location and get something meaningful, which is not the case with the Matterhorn namespaces. I am looking for reasons to go with one or the other, but to make voting easier, I will propose to go *without* http://. Tobias _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
