On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Alejandro Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, it is features/core/legacy.js but given that this content is > also licensed as open source (and included in current shinding > development) I, as developer, do not see it as an immediate problem. > Probably tickets could/should be raised against any apps relying in > legacy.js and people should, at some time, fix it. The issue is that legacy.js is not a part of the spec, and as such nothing that is "spec compliant" can rely on it. Shindig has had the advantage of having a lot of contributors being familiar with igoogle, but not every opensocial deployment has that advantage and fully understands how the legacy stuff needs to map anyway It's *really* bad form to encourage new development to rely on legacy code at all. Including legacy.js in Shindig was a decision made for pragmatic reasons, but the goal is to eventually eliminate it, and we can't do that if we actively publish examples that encourage people to use non-standard behavior. If someone fixes the examples to use the standards compliant equivalents of these libraries, I'll gladly endorse their use, but until that time I'm going to keep harping on the maintainers. -- ~Kevin
