IMO (for what its worth), stick as close to the original java DTD and only make additions to it if necessary. ie. Don't change bean to component. Try not to make any changes, just additions.
-Adam On 11/7/05, Dave Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm torn. A big part of me would like to see us remain > > Spring-compatible and therefore use their DTD unchanged (referring to > > it directly on their site). That means that all the material out there > > about Spring can be used as-is by CFers and we'd be talking the same > > language as the Java developers - something that I've railed on the CF > > community for not doing in the past! > > This is how I feel too, but... > > > > > OTOH, there are likely idiomatic differences between Java and CF that > > ColdSpring could leverage to its advantage which might mean a change > > in grammar. > > > > Exactly, and looking at the .NET port of Spring, they have their own > XSD; they don't even use <bean />, they use <object />... So maybe on > our own is the way to go (but it opens up a whole new can of worms... > do we change <bean /> to <component />, etc etc? ) > > > Overall tho', I'd need to see a lot of evidence in favor of forking > > before I voted for a separate DTD. > > Me too, I'd like to stick with the Java version for now because it > gave us a great starting point. Regardless, if anyone else has input, > I'd love to hear it... > > -Dave > >
