I certainly agree that it would great to have some standards. However, I would be willing to work around some of the differences to save 80% of the cost...but the "added features" above the standards would be what separates the new providers of CFML engines from the established. The new features (that should go above standards, no in place of) and lower cost is what brings in the money.
I'd certainly give Railo a shot at earning my $250 to upgrade from my current and happily functioning CF version 4.5.2 before I'd give Adobe another $750 or so for an upgrade... Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Roberson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:12 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Bluedragon 6.1 > > > Multiple CFML engines can become problematic when their creators begin > to introduce a plethora of new proprietary tags and lack support for > common tags. HTML would have seen it's demise a long time ago if the > W3C was never formed to create standards that browser companies are > practically obligated to conform to. > > I don't know how or in what fashion, but I think a consortium should > be formed to govern the CFML tag base. Then it would be up to Adobe, > New Atlanta, and the folks from Railo to conform to the standards set > up by the CFML consortium. > > What do you think? > > -Aaron > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:231125 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
