+1
2005/7/8, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered > stuff. > > > Sean Schofield wrote: > Can we get a few more +1's for this? > > sean > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > yes now the cobwebs are clearing... > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making > a JSCookMenu example. > > TTFN, > > -bd- > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote: > > > > A little background ... > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc. > We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose. > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly* > the same. > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.) > > sean > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/ > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the > other? > > TTFN, > > -bd- > > > > . > > > >
