There doesn't need to be a big ceremonious board, but there does need to be an "official" language spec, IMHO.
<randomness> Maybe the cfdictionary project could be fleshed out... we could have a nice list of what works like what with what... a single point of reference type of deal... Eh. It's a personal goal at least, but I have oodles of those. :) :Den -- Grief is only the memory of widowed affections. James Martineau On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Adam Haskell wrote: > > I don't think it is that disappointing honestly. I do think we need to > continue, as engine developers, to have a dialogue with each other.There > doesn't need to be this ceremonious board to do it. We have a discussion > group for conventional wisdom and things that need vetted could go there. We > also have phones and email where we can collaborate, it is on the engine > developers to be nice and courteous. If we're thinking about adding a tag or > a feature we need to step up and reach out to the other engine makers and > talk to them and get some feedback. That's easy for me to say being in the > completely open source camp (even for us we could improve on this though) I > understand if Adobe is working on something they don't want to get out too > far they'd rather not talk to other engines. If an engine is looking at > adding cfjavascript but not going to follow the conventional syntax OpenBD > established a little phone call is a good idea. Same thing when OpenBD looks > to implement CF9 features we should be following what has been set forth. > > Adam > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:335660 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
