Okay, I think it is a tad trivial to deny their use solely because they use an IG function. Moreover, we already reference gadgets they only use the legacy apis, the todo gadget, the horoscope gadget etc, so it seems a little silly.
That said, I fixed the gadget. It no longer uses and ig methods. So now we can do whatever we like with it. (Sorry I beat you to it Alejandro - it was just a very simple replacement of one function name, so I figured I would just commit it. However, any other contributions you wish to make to the compliance test gadget are very welcome!) - Cassie On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
