You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org> on 2004/03/05 18:10:14 UTC
Cocoon Forms namespaces (was: [SUMMARY] From Woody to Cocoon Forms
1.0)
Marc Portier wrote:
> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>
>> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>>
>>> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Larson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> +1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm +1 for "forms" only - as Vadim pointed out, it's "Cocoon" is
>>>> obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
>>>> WDOT?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand, and Rolf) had a
>>> little chat on IRC and agreed on the following:
>>>
>>> Block Title: Cocoon Forms, or Cocoon Forms 1.0
>>> Block Name: cforms
>>> Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
>>> Namespace: http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0
>>
>
> sorry for missing the argumentation on keeping the 'forms' here, or is
> this a typo?
>
>>> NS Prefix: fd
>>
> and similar for binding and templating I presume? we might question if
> reordering the sub-domain and version-no is not more natural then:
>
> xmlns:fd=http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0/definition
> xmlns:fb=http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0/binding
I like it, but I'm no specialist on those things.
Stefano, IIRC you did some research on namespaces for Cocoon Blocks, WDYT?
--
Reinhard
Re: Cocoon Forms namespaces (was: [SUMMARY] From Woody to Cocoon
Forms 1.0)
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> I would do
>>
>> http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0#definition
>>
>> so that in the future there is an algorithmical way to get to the
>> version.
>
>
>
> Hehe, looks like RDF really has infected your mind ;-)
good eye :-)
> But I like this notation, which makes definition, binding, etc children
> of the more global forms/1.0 entity.
>
> BTW, does this fit with RDDL (I guess yes)?
what's behind the # sign is supposed to be meaningful on the client
side. This means that an RDDL document for cocoon forms would have to
include specifics for everything that it's included in that particular
namespace, then it would have XML IDs that map those defintions and the
client would have to reach those and make sense out of them.
in short, yes, it does fit, it imposes a little bit more practice on the
client side and forces the server side to glue all definitions in one
response.
--
Stefano.
Re: Cocoon Forms namespaces (was: [SUMMARY] From Woody to Cocoon
Forms 1.0)
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> I would do
>
> http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0#definition
>
> so that in the future there is an algorithmical way to get to the
> version.
Hehe, looks like RDF really has infected your mind ;-)
But I like this notation, which makes definition, binding, etc children
of the more global forms/1.0 entity.
BTW, does this fit with RDDL (I guess yes)?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: Cocoon Forms namespaces (was: [SUMMARY] From Woody to Cocoon
Forms 1.0)
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> I would do
>>
>> http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0#definition
>
>
>
> Stefano, how could you???!!!
>
> http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/1.0#definition
yeah right, gosh, you got me there ;-)
--
Stefano.
Re: Cocoon Forms namespaces (was: [SUMMARY] From Woody to Cocoon
Forms 1.0)
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> I would do
>
> http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0#definition
Stefano, how could you???!!!
http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/1.0#definition
;-P
Vadim
Re: Cocoon Forms namespaces (was: [SUMMARY] From Woody to Cocoon
Forms 1.0)
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> Marc Portier wrote:
>
>> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>>
>>> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Larson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> +1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm +1 for "forms" only - as Vadim pointed out, it's "Cocoon" is
>>>>> obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
>>>>> WDOT?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand, and Rolf) had a
>>>> little chat on IRC and agreed on the following:
>>>>
>>>> Block Title: Cocoon Forms, or Cocoon Forms 1.0
>>>> Block Name: cforms
>>>> Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
>>>> Namespace: http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0
>>>
>>>
>>
>> sorry for missing the argumentation on keeping the 'forms' here, or is
>> this a typo?
>>
>>>> NS Prefix: fd
>>>
>>>
>> and similar for binding and templating I presume? we might question if
>> reordering the sub-domain and version-no is not more natural then:
>>
>> xmlns:fd=http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0/definition
>> xmlns:fb=http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0/binding
>
>
> I like it, but I'm no specialist on those things.
> Stefano, IIRC you did some research on namespaces for Cocoon Blocks, WDYT?
I would do
http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0#definition
so that in the future there is an algorithmical way to get to the version.
--
Stefano.
Re: Cocoon Forms namespaces (was: [SUMMARY] From Woody to Cocoon
Forms 1.0)
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> Marc Portier wrote:
>
>> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>>
>>> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Larson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> +1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm +1 for "forms" only - as Vadim pointed out, it's "Cocoon" is
>>>>> obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
>>>>> WDOT?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand, and Rolf) had a
>>>> little chat on IRC and agreed on the following:
>>>>
>>>> Block Title: Cocoon Forms, or Cocoon Forms 1.0
>>>> Block Name: cforms
>>>> Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
>>>> Namespace: http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0
>>>
>>>
>>
>> sorry for missing the argumentation on keeping the 'forms' here, or
>> is this a typo?
>>
>>>> NS Prefix: fd
>>>
>>>
>> and similar for binding and templating I presume? we might question
>> if reordering the sub-domain and version-no is not more natural then:
>>
>> xmlns:fd=http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0/definition
>> xmlns:fb=http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0/binding
>
>
> I like it, but I'm no specialist on those things.
I think we should keep the version number at the end. What if, in the
lifetime of Cocoon forms 1.0 (the general design of it), a new binding
approach emerges that leads us to use another namespace?
Will it be http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0/binding/1.1? Looks ugly ;-)
It should be http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/binding/1.1, that will work
with http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0.
I'm still undecided however about the use of "forms" or "cforms" in the
namespace (had no time for IRC today - sorry). Won't it be strange to
have ".../forms/.../1.0" use classes in the "cforms" package and
".../forms/.../2.0" use classes in the "zforms" package? Don't know.
"forms" may be good after all to enforce that there can be only one
official form framework at a given time.
BTW, good to see you back, Marc!
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }