My compatibility concerns could be interpreted as bias, but we do possess a signficiant arsenal of quality assurance test suites here that we've made a massive investment in over the years, and I know how important small incompatabilities can be to customers.
There's a lot that goes into being ColdFusion/CFML "compatible", and without putting that in that effort, and I think using the phrases "compatible" or "signficantly compatible" can be very misleading for customers who trust these statements. ---------------- Date: 06/14/2003 02:12 PM Author: John Quarto-vonTivadar Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=m:4:24823:124796 > but please note that "substantially compatible" is different than being "compatible". > Damon, I think your compatibility point is well taken. But it would carry much more weight when delivered by people outside of either camp. For example what a Mike Dinowitz or Hal Helms or Howie Hamlin have to say about the compatibility being substantially different or substantially the same, simply because they aren't identified as being in one camp or another. *Of course*, a MACR person is going to say that that difference makes a difference. And of course, a NA person is going to say that the few differences are differences that make no difference. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
