Ok ok, I can' stand it noonger, time to get into the ring (i'm warmed up now, and since Scott has a full belly I'm sure he's easy to knock out).. Ding ding.. Round 7
> *burp* - i've had lunch now, so i'm not as moody. > Nah, my argument *man i loose my points easily* was that, it seems funny > that we use CFMX to makeup our own language. In that whether you use an > XML packet or use <ms:MyCustomTag/> approach, you're effectively > inventing your own hybrid language to take care of something that in > many ways should already be done? and if not? then why not? Are you still asking, or just stating what your question was? I think some obvious and very valid reason have already been mentioned. > Its like we aren't happy with CFMX and as a stakeholder in Macromedia > (both through my career and purchasing power via companies) i find it a > weird concept, that we as consumers simply live with such limitation and > are happy to re-invent the wheel. It may not be Macromedias exact fault, > but in many ways it is. They've got the solution, but are holding it > hostage via price tag. Looks to me like you are still trying to pin your opinion on us... and trying to get Flex integrated with CFMX.. > My MossyBlog post(s) was put forward in that " why don't you combine > FLEX with CFMX? either as one big tool or splined off but in a more > attractive packaged format then 12k". yup, you still are.. I think you have got such a hard on for Flex that you are just about willing to do anything to work with it.. hmm, I declare defeated, you just won' give up.. Register now for the 3rd National Conference on Tourism Futures, being held in Townsville, North Queensland 4-7 August - www.tq.com.au/tfconf --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
