Re: Feature sets [was Re: Templating System]

[Frank D. Cringle]

Drew Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ken Williams wrote:
> > 
> > I suggest having not just a simple checkmark, but a 3-way check.  A
> > system either supports a feature, or it doesn't, or it *optionally*
> > supports it (can be switched on and off).  This is often very helpful to
> > know, and might let one get a good sense of the differences between
> > various systems at a glance.
> Another great idea! Should we go one farther and have a checkbox for
> "coming in next version", or is that going to far? I'm thinking it is
> too easy to get wrapped up in "forward looking statements" by having
> "coming soon".

<unconstructive grumble>
This sounds dreadfully microsoftian.  Trashcan: check; Bouncing
paperclip: check.

I suspect HTML::Template will achieve the highest functionality to
checkbox ratio.

-- 
Frank Cringle,      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (+49 2304) 467101; fax: 943357