Aren't prefixes defined by the developer of the application using the the JSTL tags?
The prefixes in the documentation are merely suggestions, you don't HAVE to follow that. > How were the names for the JSTL tag library prefixes chosen? > I think that > the naming could be more consistent and/or meaningful. For > example, instead > of the current ones, how about these alternatives: > > c --> core > x --> xml > fmt --> format > sql --> sql > > But, even this isn't clear that the libraries are related. > So, perhaps > instead they should be: > > jstlc or jstlcore > jstlx or jstlxml > jstlf or jstlformat > jstls or jstlsql > > Given that "c" or "x" by themselves are not very unique and > fail to convey > anything about what they do (except to those who already > know), it seems > that these prefixes should be more meaningful. If there's an > "sql" prefix, > then why isn't there an "xml" prefix (instead of "x"? It > seems odd that > there is no consistency in naming. If they were x,c,f, and > s, they would at > least be consistent. And, xml,core,format, and sql would be > more consistent > and clearer as to their purpose. But, these alternatives > don't show that > they're related in any way. So, would > jstlcore,jstlxml,jstlformat, and > jstsql be the best? If this is going to be a widely adopted > tag library, I > think we need better prefix names. And, if the possibility > exists that > additional tag libraries are added, then perhaps a more > consistent naming > convention should be picked now. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
