I don't think I would. I really prefer the way things are heading now where the whole concept is considered something like "virtual paths" or "logical paths" and leave the notion of namespaces strictly in the realm of PSR-X and autoloading.

Only PHP classes can actually have a namespace (they have a meaning there; they don't to a .png or .twig file, for example).

This is a big source of push back I've had on PSR-0 Resource Locator in the past. "But those are for mapping namespaces..."

@AmyStephen We both see the idea that the mappings can be used to emulate "namespace-like" addressing against normal files. However, I'm really leaning in the direction now that we'd be coming at things from the wrong angle to try and get people behind that concept.

In reality, namespaces are just a specialized form of the general path mapping stuff that we're talking about. That is what you and I interested in. The fact that we can overlay PSR-X usage of namespaces onto a more generalized say of mapping logical paths to filesystem paths is the better approach than trying to get people to look at namespaces (a very specific meaning in PHP) to files that never had that notion to begin with.

I know you're pushing for this pretty hard. I disagree that it is the right way to look at it. We're ultimately talking about the same thing, I think. It is the direction in which we are coming at the problem that differs. I think that we'll be more successful to try and push PSR Path Mapping as a way to logically organize things than to try and get people to ever accept that src/Resources/settings.xml has anything at all to do with namespaces.

We may continue to not see eye to eye on this. That is OK. :) I really think our goals are the same.