> Yes I posted a version that would be backwards compatible but > it seemed as if others (Hani I think) preferred the default > behaviour to be changed to be like in the new version. I can > modify my posted version and then the table tag/template > would have to be modified as well in that case. ok, no problem with that
> > > Another question which I'm very interested in is how the 1.3 is > > going further in the future. What about new features? > > I think there must be room for new releases 1.4, 1.5 etc to > fix bugs and add new features in an evolutionary way (as > opposed to the WW2 track). I have not had the time to try WW2 > yet so I do not know how backwards compatible it will be in > the end, but the original plan was, as I recall, that it > should not have to be backwards compatible in order to allow > for all the new nice features. > So for those of us with systems in production I definitely > see the need for a "slow"-progress backwards-compatible > branch as well. In this case I definitively hope that there will be 1.4 etc. releases and someone takes care of that ;-) Anyway Dick, you are doing a great job! And I'm very thankful you have taken the time to look into the bugs and to get 1.3 out. Cheers -Paolo ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
