[Zope3-dev] Re: Better access to APIs in paths (was Re:needingviewsclues - template/title troubles)

[Chris Withers]

Shane Hathaway wrote:
> 
> If prefixes map directly to components or interfaces, the new syntax is 
> really specific to Zope.  Every time you want to create a new API, you 
> have to be sure no one else has staked a claim to the prefix you want. 
> Even if you're using page templates outside Zope, you have to be sure no 
> one in the Zope community has taken your prefix, because you might want 
> to interoperate with Zope someday, and you don't want to change your 
> prefix.  So effectively, all the namespaces are centralized and 
> controlled by Zope.  That could be a problem for interesting prefixes 
> with ambiguous meanings like "workflow", "versions", "api", "db", etc.

This is an amazingly good point and a very good reason to go for namespaces 
IMNSHO... Could they be made easier to swallow by allowing 'default' 
namespace-to-prefix mappings being made outside the template or would this leave 
us back at this problem?

> The crucial difference between Jim's point of view and mine is the 
> number of namespaces (APIs) that should exist.  Jim wants one.  I want 
> many--countless, even.  If there is only one namespace, or very few, 
> URI-bound namespaces are an irrelevant distraction.  If there are many 
> namespaces, we need URIs for at least two reasons: to blend with 
> existing conventions, and for decentralization.

...which means I'm +1 for lots of namespaces and URIs...

cheers,

Chris