+1
On 25.09.2012 19:07, Tobias Wunden wrote:
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]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
