To me, backward compatibility means a new version runs prior version
code just like the prior version -- not that the new version additions
will run on a prior version.
I meant that new version of CF could accept prior version syntax,
assumptions. etc, by enclosing the target code within tags that
specified that the compiler should treat the enclosed code as the
indicated prior version.
I did not mean that the prior version should recognize tags introduced
in later versions -- don't know how to do that, with what already
exists.
However, one of the things that has made HTML so flexible is that i
every version just ignores tags that it doesn't understand (treats them
as comments) -- Brilliant!
Dick
On Aug 7, 2004, at 6:19 PM, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
> Well if you included <cfscript> in a template executed on a CF3
> server, the page would produce an error, so I guess I'm still unsure
> how that equates to <cfscript version="5.0"> ... or your saying that
> their addition of cfscript in version 4 was exactly that sort of
> phenomenon... :-/ ... I'm confused.
>
> > I only meant that they added a new feature by including it
> > within tags
> > -- that are, essentially, compiler directives.
>
> > Dick
>
> > On Aug 7, 2004, at 5:40 PM, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
>
> >> > On reflection, though this is exactly the way that
> >> > they
> >> > added scripting with <cfscript>...</cfscript>
> >>
> >> Say what? cfscript has no attributes...
>
> s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
> new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
>
> add features without fixtures with
> the onTap open source framework
>
> http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
> http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
> http://www.fusiontap.com
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
