Re: SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?
I think the capability here really says „this bundle implements Sightly Language Spec 1.1“ And since this spec is outside of Sling at  and commonly referred to as sightly.io I would think we should be using a namespace which matches the Sightly Language Spec and is not implementation specific with Sling
We could, of course, add an attribute indicating that this would be the Sling implementation.
> Am 28.01.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Robert Munteanu <[hidden email]>:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> By analogy with
>> http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/ReferenceNamespaces, should we
>> agree on a prefix such as "org.apache.sling.capability.MMM" for our
>> capability names, where MMM is the module name like "sightly"?
> I don't see why not, it's good to namespace them. I would be slightly
> inclined to drop the 'capability' from the prefix, since it would look
> a bit rendundant. Compare
> Require-Capability: org.apache.sling.capability.sightly;
> Require-Capability: org.apache.sling.sightly; filter:="(version=1.0)"