On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:58:41 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/> > I also would like to insist on the fact that FOM (flow object model) is > nothing more than OM (object model) that we have everywhere in Cocoon, > but rewrapped as JS objects. So we should better concentrate on the OM > itself and let its JS counterpart follow its evolutions. +1 Yes, please. -- Peter Hunsberger
