[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: followup on yesterday's discussion of the namespace proposal
Hi, in yesterday's telco, we heard concerns about potential overlap between the proposed new globallyUniqueName attribute, and existing attributes like "id" and "package". 1) It appears that there is no "package" attribute; it may have been discussed earlier, but I can't find it in Draft 61a. 2) Regarding the potential overlap with "id"... That attribute is currently defined as: "This attribute contains a system-assigned ID which uniquely identifies this property." So this would not work, as the whole point of the globallyUniqueName is that it can be used to have the same identifier across multiple repositories and protocols; so, by definition, it can't be system-assigned -- maybe we can just relax or rephrase that requirement, though. Also, 3) for consistency with other object types like documents, the new attribute should probably be present on all object types (for instance, in JCR, node types are defined as expanded names as well). Feedback appreciated, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]