My main problem with all of this is that we're still only comparing implementations, not specifications.
Having a real CFML specification (instead of just usage documentation) would make so many things so much easier, I think. Jim Davis President, http://www.depressedpress.com Webmaster, http://www.firstnight.org Webmaster, http://www.cfAdvocacy.org Senior Consultant, http://www.metlife.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Damon Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 11:37 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: CF Compatability > > The reason for my post was to point of the difference between being > "substantially compatible" with ColdFusion CFML, and being "compatible" > with ColdFusion CFML for CF4.5 and CF5 customers. > > Increasingly, thread after thread of legitimate user and community > discussion here and elsewhere have been taken over by New Atlanta > Communications, LLC employees and mutated into marketing campaign threads, > and include the phrase "compatible" or "substantially compatible". > > While compatibility (and quality in general) is by no means the only or > central issue customers are need to be concerned with, unsuspecting users > naively are likely to miss this subtle difference, and could be mislead or > even hurt in a variety of ways. > > To remain silent and allow this to go unchallenged could be bad. > > Damon > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
